wetland buffers an annotated bibliography...introduction wetland buffers: an annotated bibliography...

Wetland Buffers____________

An Annotated Bibliography

February 1992Publication #92-11

printed on recycled paper

For additional copies of this document, contact:

Department of EcologyPublications Distribution Office

PO Box 47600Olympia, WA 98504-7600

(360) 407-7472

Ecology is an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action employer and shall notdiscriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, sexualorientation, age, religion or disability as defined by applicable state and/or federalregulations or statutes. If you have special accommodation needs, contact TDD# 360/407-6006.

Wetlands Buffers:An Annotated Bibliography

edited by

Andrew J. Castelle, Catherine Conolly, Michael Emers(Adolfson Associates, Inc., Edmonds, WA)

Eric D. Metz, Susan Meyer and Michael Witter(W & H Pacific, Inc., Bellevue, WA)

for

Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management ProgramWashington State Department of Ecology

Olympia, Washington

February 1992

Ecology Publication #92-11

INTRODUCTION

Wetland Buffers: An Annotated Bibliography is a compilation of abstracts dealing with theuse of vegetated "buffer zones" to reduce the impact of adjacent land use on wetlandecosystems. Most of the entries in this document come from journal articles published indiverse fields: agriculture, engineering, fisheries, forestry, geology, landscape architecture,marine sciences, resource management, and wildlife biology. The bibliography also containssummaries of government publications from the federal, state, and local levels, includinggovernment-funded research, guidance documents, and adopted or proposed wetlandsconservation ordinances. Also included are summaries of symposia presentations.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to create a compilation of citations which analyze the functionalrequirements, composition, uses, effectiveness, or delineation of wetland buffer areas. Additional citations concern the protection of wetland functions and values from manydifferent perspectives. Though extensive, this collection does not represent an exhaustiveor exclusive listing of work conducted in each respective field concerning the protection ofwetlands.

The intent of this collection is to assist landowners, planners, managers, developers, andpoliticians in the Pacific Northwest in understanding viable wetland ecosystems and therequirements for creating adequate protection criteria for this diminishing resource.

METHODS

The literature search focused on technical information from journal articles, governmentdocuments, proceedings from conferences and symposiums, and research reports, ratherthan on text or general information books. On-line searches were conducted throughAFSA, Enviroline, Water Resources, NTIS, Pollution, Life Sciences, AGRICOLA, andBiosis, as well as the collections at the following University of Washington libraries: NaturalSciences, Fisheries, Forestry, Engineering, and Architecture.

The majority of this document is based on an annotated bibliography developed by MarkYoung for the Department of Ecology with assistance from Sue Mauermann, Departmentof Ecology, and Bob Zeigler, Department of Wildlife.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Whenever available, the authors' original abstracts appear. Information added to theauthors' abstracts by the editors is provided in brackets, [ ], following the original abstracts. For those citations without abstracts, a synthesis of material was undertaken by the editors.

The source of each summary is noted prior to each abstract: a single * denotes the author'sabstract in the citation; a double ** denotes an editors' synthesis of the material.

A complete list of articles reviewed appears at the end of the bibliography; bold-facedreferences are those which are included in the annotated bibliography. Exclusion ofreviewed articles from the annotated bibliography is entirely due to time and budgetaryconstraints; no lack of scientific merit or applicability should be inferred from these or otheromissions.

Many of the citations have been discussed in a companion summary report:

Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S. Mauermann, T.Erickson, S.S. Cooke. 1992. Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness. AdolfsonAssociates, Inc., for Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program,Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Pub. No. 92-11.

COMMENTS

All comments on this document and information on additional citations concerning buffersfor wetlands are welcome. Written suggestions and inquiries should be made to:

Washington State Department of EcologyShorelands and Environmental Assistance ProgramP.O. Box 47600Olympia, Washington 98504-7600

CITATION

This document should be cited as:

Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, and M. Witter (eds.). 1992.Wetland Buffers: An Annotated Bibliography. Adolfson Associates, Inc., forShorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington State Departmentof Ecology, Olympia, Publ. No. 92-11.

1

Adamus, P. R., and L.T. Stockwell. 1983. A Method for Wetland FunctionalAssessment, Vol. 1. Federal Highway Administration Rep. No. FHWA-IP-82-23.

Abstract: *The manual presents a state-of-the-art review of wetland functions. Functions coveredinclude groundwater recharge and discharge, flood storage and desynchronization, shorelineanchoring and dissipation of erosive forces, sediment trapping, nutrient retention andremoval, food chain support (detrital export), habitat for fish and wildlife, and active andpassive recreation. The manual covers all wetland types in the 48 conterminous states, anduses the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service definition and classification system. It examines thevalidity, interactions, and possible significance thresholds for the functions, as well asdocumenting their underlying processes. With appropriate qualifying information, wetlandtypes are ranked for each function. Wetland types ideal for each function are identified andillustrated. Potential impacts of highways upon each function are described and, whereavailable, possible thresholds are given. Factors which regulate impact magnitude, such aslocation, design, watershed erodibility, flushing capacity, basin morphology, bioticsensitivity (resistance and resilience), recovery capacity, and refugia, are explained. Cumulative impacts and social factors affecting wetland significance are discussed. Effectsof the following factors on wetland function are documented: contiguity, shape, fetch,surface area, area of watershed and drainage area, stream order, gradient, land cover, soils,depositional environment, climate, wetland system, vegetation form, substrate, salinity, Ph,hydroperiod, water level fluctuations, tidal range, scouring, velocity, depth, width,circulation, pool-riffle ratio, vegetation density, flow pattern, interspersion, humandisturbance, turbidity, alkalinity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and biotic diversity.

Allen, A.W. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Mink. U.S. Dept. Int., FishWildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.61. 19 pp.

Abstract: *This document is part of the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Model Series (FWS/OBS-82/10), which provides habitat information useful for impact assessment and habitatmanagement studies. Several types of habitat information are provided. The Habitat UseInformation Section is largely constrained to those data that can be used to derivequantitative relationships between key environmental variables and habitat suitability. Thehabitat use information provides the foundation for the HSI model that follows. In addition,this same information may be useful in the development of other models more appropriateto specific assessment or evaluation needs. [Mink depend primarily on emergent wetland vegetation for food and cover, but woodyvegetation in shrub or forested wetlands may provide some cover and support for lodgeconstruction. Mink activity and proximity ranges from region to region. In Quebec, themain activity was within 3 m (9.8 ft) of the water's edge; in Michigan, mink were observedwithin 30.4 m (100 ft) of the water's edge; in a British study, 10 m (32.8 ft). In Idaho, mink

2

proximity ranged from 5 to 100 m (16.4 to 328 ft) of water, with mink never observedfurther than 200 m (656 ft). Mink were found to avoid open areas (wetlands with straight,open and exposed shorelines, and shorelines that were heavily grazed). Optimal wetlandareas have irregular and diverse shorelines, log jams, areas of abundant downfall and debrisfor cover, and pools for foraging. Mink move in a core area which is generally shaped tothe edge of the wetland, generally 300 m (984 ft). In Idaho, this ranged from 1 to 2 km (.6to 1.2 mi) of shoreline length. Optimal wetland habitat has water at least 9 months of theyear. Woody vegetation within 100 m (323 ft) was assumed to influence the potentialquality of the habitat. In small forested or shrub/scrub wetlands, the adjacent 100 m (323ft) of upland vegetation was assumed to have a more significant role in defining the relativeimportance of habitat quality for mink. In large forested and shrub/scrub wetlands 405 ha(1000 acres) or larger, significant factors were the amount of woody and persistentherbaceous vegetation, and the length of time surface water was present.] Allen, A.W. and R.D. Hoffman. 1984. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Muskrat.,

U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.46. 27 pp.

Abstract: *This document is part of the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Model Series (FWS/OBS-82/10), which provides habitat information useful for impact assessment and habitatmanagement studies. Several types of habitat information are provided. The Habitat UseInformation Section is largely constrained to those data that can be used to derivequantitative relationships between key environmental variables and habitat suitability. Thehabitat use information provides the foundation for the HSI model that follows. In addition,this same information may be useful in the development of other models more appropriateto specific assessment or evaluation needs.

[Muskrat were found to tolerate human activity, living in sub-optimum conditions if enoughfood is present. Water level stability has a direct effect on the quality of muskrat habitat,with water fluctuations not exceeding 90 cm (35.4 in/yr). Optimal habitat provides retreatareas (log debris, downfalls, deep pools, backwaters, and undercut banks), and a dense,herbaceous, vegetated border at least 10 m (32.8 ft) wide containing a 50 to 80% canopycover along the wetland. Intensive livestock use was found to be detrimental to muskrathabitat, due to decreased vegetation cover, increased bank erosion, and trampling of theburrow system. The home range varies between the riverine and bank dwelling muskrat:250 to 400 m (819 to 1311 ft) of shoreline for the former, and 200 to 300 m (656 to 984 ft)for the bank dwellers. Habitats along the edge of a wetland were found to be more linear,whereas interior wetland habitats were more circular.]

3

Allen, Hollis H. 1978. Role of Wetland Plants in Erosion Control of RiparianShorelines. pp. 403-414. In: P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (eds.),Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. AmericanWater Resources Association.

Abstract: *The role of wetland vegetation in erosion abatement of lake, river, and stream shorelinesand some of the work done by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station asrelated to the use of wetland vegetation for erosion control are described. Erosion controlpotential of both herbs and woody plant species is discussed and various plants areidentified that have special attributes for use in erosion control. Several factors arepresented that influence the establishment of wetland vegetation along shorelines, such asplants' flood and desiccation tolerance and resistance to undermining, steepness in bankslope, amount and frequency of water level fluctuation, degree of wave action, and speed ofcurrents. Discussion is devoted to the artificial establishment and value of wetlandvegetation. A method is presented of employing vegetation with an engineering structuresuch as a revetment to mutually abate erosion and provide other values such as a cover forwildlife and the improvement of aesthetics. In addition, several suggestions are made forfuture research studies that could possibly enable more optimum use of wetland plants inerosion control.

Barton, David R., William D. Taylor, and R. M. Biette. 1985. Dimensions of RiparianBuffer Strips Required to Maintain Trout Habitat in Southern OntarioStreams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:364-378.

Abstract: *The relationships between riparian land use and environmental parameters that define thesuitability of southern Ontario streams for trout were examined for 40 sites on 38 streams. Weekly observations of maximum and minimum temperature, coarse and fine suspendedmatter, and discharge were made during June, July, and August 1980. Land use wasdetermined from aerial photographs of each stream. Fish were surveyed at each site duringAugust by electrofishing and seining.

The only environmental variable which clearly distinguished between trout and nontroutstreams was weekly maximum water temperature: streams with trimean weekly maxima lessthan 22°C had trout; warmer streams had, at best, only marginal trout population. Troutstreams tended to have low concentrations of fine suspended solids and a more stabledischarge, but so did many of the other streams. Water temperature, concentration of fineparticulate matter, and variability of discharge were inversely related to the fraction of theupstream banks covered by forest. Fifty-six percent of the observed variation in weeklymaximum water temperature could be explained by the fraction of bank forested within 2.5km upstream of a site. Other land uses were not clearly related to stream variables, exceptthat high concentrations of fine suspended solids were most often observed in reaches usedas pasture.

4

Analysis of data from sites located within buffer strips yielded a regression relatingmaximum weekly temperatures to buffer strip length and width. The regression accountedfor 90% of the observed variation in water temperature for these sites. The model wasverified further by comparisons with observed temperatures at a second set of sites locateddownstream from buffer strips.

Beschta, R.L. 1978. Long-Term Patterns of Sediment Production Following RoadConstruction and Logging in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resour. Res.14:1011-1016.

Abstract : *Suspended sediment production after road construction, logging, and slash disposal wassignificantly increased (P = 0.95) on two watersheds in Oregon's Coast Range. A 25%patch-cut watershed showed increases during 3 of 8 post-treatment years. These increaseswere caused primarily by mass soil erosion from roads. Monthly sediment concentrationsbefore the occurrence of the annual peak flow were increased more than those following theannual peak. Surface erosion from a severe slash burn was the primary cause of increasedsediment yields for 5 post-treatment years on a watershed that was 82% clearcut. Monthlysediment concentrations were generally increased throughout the winter runoff period onthis watershed. The flushing of suspended sediment on Oregon Coast Range watersheds isapparent from seasonal changes of suspended sediment rating curves.

Bingham, S.C., P.W. Westerman, M.R. Overcash. 1980. Effects of Grass Buffer ZoneLength in Reducing the Pollution from Land Application Areas. Transactionsof the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), 23:330-342.

Abstract: *A field study was conducted to determine the effect of length of grass buffer zones inreducing pollutant concentration in rainfall runoff from land application areas. Evaluationof pollutant concentrations in runoff at various distances downslope from an area wherecaged layer poultry manure was applied regularly indicated that for the conditions of thisexperiment a buffer area length to waste area length area ratio of 1.0 was usually requiredto reduce concentrations to those measured in runoff from a similar plot receiving nomanure. Less buffer area would be needed if concentrations greater than backgroundconditions were acceptable.

Brazier, J.R. and G.W. Brown. 1973. Buffer Strips for Stream Temperature Control.Research Paper no.15, Forest Research Lab, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis,OR. 9 pp.

Abstract: *During clearcut logging, complete removal of the forest canopy and the shade it provides tosmall streams can cause large increases in water temperature. Such increases in temperature

5

can be prevented if buffer strips of vegetation are left along the stream to provide shade. The purposes of this paper are to define the characteristics of buffer strips that areimportant in regulating the temperature of small streams and to describe a method ofdesigning buffer strips that will insure no change in stream temperature as a result oflogging and, at the same time, minimize the amount of commercial timber left in the strip.

Commercial timber volume alone is not an important criterion for temperature control. Further, the width of the buffer strip is also not an important criterion. For the smallstreams studied as part of this research, the maximum shading ability of the average bufferstrip was reached within a width of 80 feet (24 m). Specifying standard 100 to 200 foot (31to 61 meter) buffer strips for all streams generally will include more timber than necessary. The canopy density along the path of incoming solar radiation best describes the ability ofthe buffer strip to control stream temperature. An estimate of this value can be obtainedeasily by foresters laying out buffer strips in the field and will insure proper design of thebuffer strip for control of stream temperature.

Broderson, J.M. 1973. Sizing Buffer Strips to Maintain Water Quality. M.S. Thesis,University of Washington, Seattle.

Abstract: *Environmental pressure for improved logging techniques and reduced impacts of timberharvesting are placing mounting responsibilities on the forest and watershed managers toseek solutions. This paper investigates the impact of logging on water quality by identifyingthe parameters and recommends solutions by using buffer strips along streams. Existinglaws and guidelines directly and indirectly used to size buffer strips in the Pacific Northwestare presented.

Major problems in sizing the strips are identified and explored. These problems are foundto be the effectiveness of controlling sedimentation, providing ample shading along streams,controlling debris, and avoiding excessive windthrow of the buffer strip.

Brooks, R.P. and J.B. Hill. 1987. Status and Trends of Freshwater Wetlands in theCoal-mining Region of Pennsylvania, USA. Environmental Management11:29-34.

Abstract: *The impact of surface mining for coal on the nature and extent of freshwater wetlands wasassessed on 73,200 ha in western Pennsylvania. The influence of mining on wetlands wasnot uniform across physiographic regions, varying with regional differences in hydrologyand soils. Overall, mined lands supported 18% more palustrine wetlands than unminedlands, primarily because of a 270% gain in permanent, open-water wetlands on mined landsin the glaciated region. Open-water wetlands declined on mined lands in unglaciatedregions owing to unfavorable hydrologic conditions. The number and size of emergentwetlands declined as a result of mining. Mined lands supported 81% fewer riverine

6

wetlands than unmined lands. This was caused primarily by avoidance of lands containingstreams, and secondarily by a 10% reduction in replacement of riverine wetlands duringreclamation. Land managers need to develop land use policies that maximize the ecologicaland social benefits that can be derived from developing diverse wetland communities onmined lands.

Brown, E.R., (ed.). 1985. Riparian Zones and Freshwater Wetlands. Management ofWildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington,Part I - Chapter Narratives. pp. 57-80.

Abstract: **This chapter provides qualitative information about riparian zones and freshwater wetlands. Riparian zones are described as transitional zones between aquatic and upland zones whichare adjacent to rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, springs, and sometimes tidewater. Freshwater wetlands are described as areas that are permanently or intermittently floodedwhere the water table is normally at or near the surface, and where hydric soils and wetlandvegetation occur. Riparian zones and wetlands provide some of the most important wildlifehabitat in forestlands of western Oregon and Washington, because the major liferequirements for many species are present. They are also important for a variety of landuses, including forestry, agriculture, mining, transportation, and recreation. Five factors arefrequently mentioned in defining the character and function of riparian zones and wetlands:topography, vegetation, surface water, soil, and local climate. The habitat functions thatattract wildlife to riparian zones and wetlands include foraging and watering, breeding andrearing, hiding and resting, and thermal cover.

Brown, G.W. and J.T. Krygier. 1970. Effects of Clear Cutting on StreamTemperature. Wat. Resour. Res. 6:1133-1139.

Abstract: *The principle source of energy for warming streams is the sun. The amount of sunlightreaching the stream may be increased after clear-cut logging. Average monthly maximumtemperature increased by 14°F and annual maximum temperatures increased from 57° to85°F one year after clear-cut logging on a small watershed in Oregon's coast range. In anearby watershed where strips of brush and trees separated logging units from the stream,no changes in temperature were observed that could be attributed to clear-cutting.

Brown, M.T. and J.M. Schaefer. 1987. Buffer Zones for Water, Wetland, andWildlife. A Final Report on the Evaluation of the Applicability of UplandBuffers for the Wetlands of the Wekiva Basin. Prepared for the St. JohnsRiver Water Management District by the Center for Wetlands, University ofFlorida, Gainesville, Florida 32611. 163 pp.

Abstract: **

7

This document is the result of a study evaluating the efficacy of upland buffers as a meansof protecting the water resources of the Wekiva Basin in Central Florida. The purpose ofthe study was to determine the need for, potential applicability of, and criteria fordelineating upland buffers in the Wekiva Basin.

The report provides a detailed review of the existing scientific understanding of bufferzones, their importance to the adjacent wetlands and waters, and the effects of bufferalterations on water quality and quantity, and wetland wildlife habitat values. The reportalso presents a methodology for determining required buffer zone widths. Four relevantfactors in the methodology are: the wetland edge or boundary, the erodibility of the soils inthe zone immediately upland of the wetland edge (slope and soil type), the depth of thegroundwater table below the soil surface in the zone immediately upland of the wetlandedge, and wildlife habitat requirements (habitat suitability, spatial requirements, access toupland or transitional habitat, and noise impacts).

Budd, W.W., P.L. Cohen, P.R. Saunders, and F.R. Steiner. 1987. Stream CorridorManagement in the Pacific Northwest: I. Determination of Stream-CorridorWidths. Environ. Management 11:587-597.

Abstract: *King County, Washington is a part of the rapidly growing Pacific Northwest region. Thisgrowth has placed pressure on stream corridors. Past studies about regional streamcorridors provide a rich source of information for environmental planners and managers. This article draws on existing literature and case studies to provide guidelines fordetermining optimal stream corridor widths in a watershed located in King County,Washington.

Practical determinations of stream corridor widths can be efficiently and easily made using asimple field survey of select reaches of a stream system combined with an analysis of soils,vegetation, physiography and land use characteristics. This approach was found applicableover a broad range of stream characteristics. Additionally, the technique was sensitive toextreme environmental conditions such as extremely steep slopes or extensive wetlandregions.

[A 15m (50 ft) buffer width was found to be an adequate protection barrier for manyreaches of the Bear-Evans Creek watershed. This includes intermittent as well ascontinuously flowing reaches of this watershed. Under conditions of poor habitat,extremely severe bank slopes, and extensive wetland areas, practical corridor widths werevariable and may require additional study.]

Butcher, G.S., W.A. Niering, W.J. Barry, and R.H. Goodwin. 1981. EquilibriumBiogeography and the Size of Nature Preserves: An Avian Case Study.Oecologia 49:29-37.

8

Abstract: *The results of seven breeding bird censuses on an upland site in Connecticut from 1953-1976 are analyzed and related to changes in vegetation and surrounding urbanization duringthe same period. Turnover of breeding bird species on the old-field portion of the site wasdue to vegetational changes that caused the extinction of species preferring open shrubhabitats and the colonization of species preferring forest. Turnover of breeding birds on theforest portion was due to its increasing isolation from similar forest habitat, resulting in thelocal extinction of forest interior species and the colonization of species characteristic ofsuburban habitats. The study site is too small for the preservation of forest interior birdspecies. It must be coordinated with larger preserves in a regional context if it is to beuseful in preventing the regional extinction of forest interior bird species.

Canning, D.J. 1991. Shoreline Bluff & Slope Stability: Management Options.(Version 2.0) Shorelands Technical Advisory Paper No. 2. Shorelands andCoastal Zone Management Program, Washington Dept. of Ecology, Olympia.

Abstract: **This Technical Advisory Paper is one part in a series assisting local governmental plannersin implementing Washington State's Shoreline Management Act. Included are discussionsof the basic understanding of the causes of slope instability and landsliding, slopeclassification & mapping, recognition of unstable slopes, and management options,including bluff setbacks. The paper also reviews bluff setback criteria from Thurston,Island, and Jefferson Counties, as well as the Wisconsin Coastal Management Programmodel.

Chadwick, J.W. and S.P. Canton. 1983. Coal Mine Drainage Effects on a LoticEcosystem in Northwest Colorado, U.S.A. Hydrobiologia 107:25-33.

Abstract: *An aquatic biological survey was conducted in 1979-1980 to determine the effects ofdrainage from an active coal strip-mine on Trout Creek, in northwest Colorado, USA. Sampling was conducted over four seasons at four stations for periphyton, benthicinvertebrates and fish. Periphyton in Trout Creek changed in the relative abundance ofalgae divisions in no apparent relation to mining. Diatoms were the predominant division atall sites. Golden-brown algae were abundant in spring at the stations upstream and adjacentto the mine. Blue-green algae were relatively important at stations upstream anddownstream of the mine in winter. Benthic invertebrates exhibited a progressive increase indensity, biomass and number of taxa from the upstream station to the downstream station. Shannon-Wiener diversity index for benthic invertebrates decreased slightly downstream ofthe mine drainage but remained indicative of a clean water community. Aquatic insects(especially Trichoptera) were the predominant invertebrates at all stations. Analysis offunctional groups of benthic invertebrates revealed increased importance of collectorspecies at the lower sites while shredders were most important upstream of the mine. Unlike the invertebrates, fish exhibited slightly lower biomass at the station adjacent to the

9

mine. The decrease was due to fewer salmonids. However, salmonid density and biomassincreased substantially at the station just downstream of the mine. Non-game species(suckers and minnows) increased in numbers downstream and were most abundant at thelower station. This coal strip-mine had little discernable adverse effects on the periphytonand invertebrates of Trout Creek. Fish populations did not appear to be significantlyaffected by the mine. Apparently, the presence of settling ponds and a buffer zone ofunmined land between the mine and the stream helped to minimize adverse effects. [Nobuffer widths are provided.]

Chescheir, G.M., J.W. Gilliam, R.W. Skaggs, and R.G. Broadhead. 1987. TheHydrology and Pollutant Removal Effectiveness of Wetland Buffer AreasReceiving Pumped Agricultural Drainage Water. North Carolina WaterResources Research Institute, Raleigh, North Carolina. Completion Rep. No.231. 170 pp.

Abstract: **The hydrology and pollutant-removing effectiveness of two wetland areas being used tobuffer impacts of pumped agricultural drainage in Eastern North Carolina were studied. Collection and analysis of field data over a two-year period showed that buffer one,originally equipped with an efficient diffuser canal, was essentially 100% effective forpollutant removal for all observed events. Less effective flow distribution, less area andfaster drainage resulting from a greater elevation at buffer two resulted in less effectiveremoval. Hydrology of a buffer area was simulated with a wetland simulation model foroverland flow through vegetated areas. A routine was added to calculate residence time ofthe water on the buffer and percent removal of nutrients. Hourly surface and subsurfacefield drainage volumes were calculated by a water management model. The two modelsestimated that over a 20-year period, study buffer one would remove 79% of total Kjeldahlnitrogen, 82% of nitrate nitrogen, 81% of total phosphorous, and 92% of sediment. Studyof the response of wetland forest to pumped agricultural drainage showed pronouncedoverstory thinning and resultant increased floor regeneration, decreased plant diversity, anddecreased annual tree diameter increment at buffer one, and decreased annual tree diameterincrement at buffer two.

Coats, R., M. Swanson, and P. Williams. 1989. Hydrologic Analysis for CoastalWetland Restoration. Environmental Management 13:715-727.

Abstract: *Increasing recognition of the value of tidal wetlands has led to interest in how to restore andenhance areas that have been modified by human activity. The policy of recognizingrestoration or enhancement as mitigation for destruction of other wetlands is controversial. Once policy questions are separated from technical questions, the steps in a successfulproject are straightforward. A key element in the design of a successful project isquantitative hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of alternatives. Restoration projects at twosites in California used a combination of empirical geomorphic relationships, numerical

10

modeling, and verification with field observations. Experience with these and other wetlandrestoration projects indicates the importance of long-term postproject monitoring,inspection, and maintenance.

Cohen, P.. 1985. Stream Corridor Management for the Pacific Northwest and KingCounty, Washington. M.S. Thesis, Washington State University, Pullman.

Abstract: *This paper examines stream corridor management as a protection program for riparianecosystems generally in the Pacific Northwest and specifically in King County, Washington. Existing King County regulations are inadequate to protect riparian ecosystems that areunder rapid growth and development pressures in the county. Determination of bufferwidths are researched as the main criteria for establishing policies and guidelines and streamcorridors. The design and criteria for effective policies and guidelines depends on theanalysis of (1) scientific research correlating major elements of riparian ecosystems withprescribed buffer widths, (2) King County planning administration to determine bestdivisions and strategy to administer recommended policies and guidelines, (3) existingregulations to consolidate and encompass piecemeal ordinances, and (4) findings from afield survey with identified scientific research and recommended policies and guidelines. Findings from all four analyses support the design and criteria for stream corridor policiesand guidelines in King County, Washington, and possibly the Pacific Northwest region.

This study illustrates a planning process that focuses on one land use issue from thecomprehensive study stage through to the implementation stage. The value of this planningprocess is its sensitivity to ecological parameters of riparian ecosystems that fit well into theestablished legal system and decision-making process. Recommendations are made forfurther study of related issues affecting stream corridor management.

Cohen, P.L., P.R. Saunders, W.W. Budd, and F.R. Steiner. 1987. Steam CorridorManagement in the Pacific Northwest: II. Management Strategies. Environ.Management, 11:599-605.

Abstract: *King County, Washington is part of the rapidly growing Pacific Northwest region. Analysisof past and current federal, state and county regulations and administration reveals howstream corridors have been protected to date. This article draws on scientific literature anda case study to suggest future management strategies and guidelines for controllingdevelopment in King County watersheds.

[The authors recommend regulations for new development adjacent to streams. Theseinclude the reservation of an undisturbed corridor of sufficient width to maintain the naturalhydraulic and habitat functions of each stream. Water Types 1 to 4 should have a corridorof not less than 15m (50 ft) from the ordinary high water mark on each side of the stream. Type 5 waters should have a corridor of not less than 7.6m (25 ft) from the ordinary high

11

water mark. A greater width may be required for large urban developments. Althoughresearch supports buffer widths of 30.5 m (100 ft), the authors felt that theserecommendations represent a compromise of the ecological findings, the political realities,and the results of their case study.]

Corbett, E.S. and J.A. Lynch. 1985. Management of Streamside Zones on MunicipalWatersheds. pp. 187-190. In: R. Roy Johnson, Charles D. Ziebell, David R.Patton, Peter F. Folliott, and R. H. Hamre (eds.), Riparian Ecosystems andtheir Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. First North AmericanRiparian Conference, April 16-18, 1985, Tucson, Arizona.

Abstract: *Riparian zones play a major role in water quality management. Water supply considerationsand maintenance of streamside zones from the municipal watershed manager's viewpoint aredetailed. Management impacts affecting water quality and quantity on forested municipalwatersheds are discussed in relation to the structure of the riparian zone.

[In citing studies from Corbett et al. 1978, the authors conclude that a 40 ft (12.2 m) bufferzone may be adequate to prevent excessive temperature increases in small streams, but thata zone of 66 to 100 ft (20.1 to 30.5 m) is usually needed to protect the stream ecosystem. A wider buffer zone may be needed where slope or soil conditions dictate, or wherewindthrow or sunscald may be a problem. The authors also recommend that buffer zonesbe maintained along intermittent streams on municipal watersheds. This is to preventincreased stream discharge following timber harvesting, which may cause intermittentstreams to become perennial streams, permitting the transport of eroded material to themain stream channel.]

Culp, J.M. and R.W. Davies. 1983. An Assessment of the Effects of StreambankClear-Cutting on Macroinvertebrate Communities in a Managed Watershed.Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, No. 1208: xv +115 p. Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Fisheries Research Branch;Pacific Biological Station; Nanaimo, British Columbia; V9R 5K6.

Abstract: *Three macroinvertebrate sampling sites were established on Carnation Creek, VancouverIsland, British Columbia, and sampled from 1974-1980 to determine the effects of logging,with or without buffer zones, on macroinvertebrate communities. Logging without a bufferzone increased streambank erosion and the resulting sedimentation of streambank materialin the substrate. Although logging opened the forest canopy and increased the lightavailable for primary production, algal biomass did not increase after logging becausephosphorus remained the limiting factor. Allochthonous litter input to the stream wassignificantly reduced at both logged sites, but the site with a buffer zone provided greateramounts of leaf litter to the stream, and had a higher post-logging benthic standing cropthan the site without a buffer zone.

12

Throughout the pre- and post-logging periods, seasonal changes in macroinvertebratecommunity composition were strongly affected by the seasonality of discharge: high(winter), low (summer), and transitional (spring and fall). Trophic composition of themacroinvertebrate communities was not affected by logging, with collectors, collector-scrapers and collector-predators numerically dominant during all seasons and years. Logging of the streambank significantly decreased macroinvertebrate densities in thewinters, primarily because post-logging sedimentation increased winter scouring. Macroinvertebrate densities at the site without a buffer zone were also reduced in thesummer and transitional periods because of sediment intrusion into the substrate and thereduced standing crop of detritus. Macroinvertebrate communities were less detrimentallyaffected by logging when a < 10 m (33 ft) wide riparian buffer zone and natural debris damswere left along the stream. The buffer zone reduced logging-related scouring in the winter,and leaf litter input in the summer and transitional period was more similar to pre-loggingconditions.

Experimental manipulations of substrate particle size, and detritus quality and quantity wereconducted in the field, and established that detritus quality and quantity is (sic) moreimportant in determining macroinvertebrate distribution and abundance than substrateparticle size. The responses to detritus varied between macroinvertebrate taxa, and evenamong members of the same trophic guild.

Sediment addition experiments were conducted to determine the effect of downstreammovement of fine sediments by siltation on macroinvertebrate drift and benthic densities,with the timing and pattern of the drift increases being related to the vertical distribution ofmacroinvertebrates in the substrate.

Since the streambank of coastal streams provides important energy subsidies tomacroinvertebrate communities, and it mediates sediment input to the stream, logging of thestreambank is detrimental to macroinvertebrates. Management guidelines must protect thestreambank interface with the forest if coastal streams are to be maintained as productivesalmon fry rearing habitat.

Darling, N., L. Stonecipher, D. Couch, and J. Thomas. 1982. Buffer Strip SurvivalSurvey. Hoodsport Ranger District, Olympic National Forest.

Abstract: *Buffer strips are often used as a management tool to maintain and protect water influencezones [WIZ] from the impacts of timber harvest. It is a documented fact that a buffer stripcan offer excellent protection to the WIZ if the buffer remains stable. On the other hand, abuffer can cause more damage through debris jams and increased erosion if parts or all of itare blown down. The stability of a buffer strip is hard to assess during the planning stage. There are many factors which go into determining a buffer strip's susceptibility to blow-down. In the past a buffer strip's stability was usually determined by general observations

13

rather than quantitative data. In June 1977, Ivars Steinblums and Henry Froehlich fromOregon State University [OSU], computed a study of 40 streamside buffer strips in thewestern hemlock zone of Oregon's western Cascades (Streamside Buffer Strips: Survival,Effectiveness and Design, 1977). An equation was developed which incorporated severaltopographic, site and timber characteristics to predict buffer strip survival. A survey of 17buffer strips was completed in 1981 on the Hoodsport District, Olympic National Forest. The objective of this survey was to assess the effectiveness and stability of these buffers andto determine if a correlation existed between % survival predicted by the OSU equation andactual % survival measured in the field.

Darnell, R.M., W.E. Pequegnat, B.M. James, F.J. Benson, and R.. Defenbaugh. 1976.Impacts of Construction Activities in Wetlands of the United States. US EPA,Office of Research and Development, Corvallis Environmental ResearchLaboratory. Corvallis, Oregon 97330. EPA-600/3-76-045, 392 pp.

Abstract: *The primary types of construction activity which severely impact wetland environments ofthe United States include: floodplain surfacing and drainage, mining, impoundment,canalization, dredging and channelization, and bank and shoreline construction. Each typeof construction activity is attended by an identifiable suite of physical and chemicalalterations of the wetland environment which may extend for many miles from the site ofconstruction and may persist for many years. In turn, each type of physical and chemicalmodification has been shown to induce a derived set of biological effects, many of which arepredictable, in general, if not in specific detail. The most environmentally damaging effectsof construction activities in wetland areas, in order of importance, are: direct habitat loss,addition of suspended solids, and modification of water levels and flow regimes. Majorconstruction-related impacts also derive from altered water temperature, pH, nutrient levels,oxygen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and certain pollutants such as heavy metals,radioactive isotopes, and pesticides. Over one-third of the nation's wetlands have been lostthrough various forms of direct habitat destruction, and well over half of the remainder havebeen severely modified. Many aquatic species are known to have been lost or severelyrestricted, and a number of species and habitats are currently in jeopardy, at least in part asa result of construction activities. Deliberate and drastic action is required to reverse thepresent trends, and recommendations are given for specific steps which must be taken toinsure the survival of the wetland ecosystems of the nation.

Davis, A.A. 1989. DER Wetlands Protection Action Plan. Water Pollution ControlAssociation of Pennsylvania Magazine 22:18-22.

Abstract : *The goal of the Pennsylvania DER (Department of Environmental Resources) wetlandsprotection policy is to prevent destruction, degradation, or significant impact to wetlandswhere practicable alternatives exist, and to minimize impacts or replace wetlands whereimpacts are unavoidable. DER will adopt the triple parameter approach found in the EPA

14

Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual to develop means of identifying andevaluating wetlands early in the development process. Mitigation standards will beestablished to replace the wetlands values which are lost or degraded. DER proposes toestablish a 100 ft. impact area around all wetlands and a 300 ft. impact area around all"exceptional value" wetlands.

Doyle, R.C., G.C. Stanton, D.C. Wolf. 1977. Effectiveness of Forest And Grass BufferStrips in Improving the Water Quality of Manure Polluted Runoff. AmericanSociety of Agricultural Engineers, Paper No. 77-2501.

Abstract: *The objectives of this research were to determine the movement of nutrients and fecalbacteria in surface runoff from manure treated land and to evaluate the effectiveness offorest and grass buffer strips in improving the water quality of manure polluted runoff. Application of 90 mT/ha of dairy manure resulted in elevated levels of N, P, K, Na, fecalcoliform and fecal streptococci in surface runoff collected at a distance of 0.0 m from thetreated area. Forest buffer strips were effective in reducing the concentration of fecalcoliform, fecal streptococci and total soluble N, P, and K in a distance of 3.8 m. Grassbuffer strips were effective in reducing the loading rates of fecal bacteria and soluble NO3-N, P, Na, and K in a distance of 4.0 m. From these experiments, it was concluded that bothforest and grass buffer strips were effective in improving the water quality of manurepolluted runoff under the experimental conditions studied.

Edwards, E.A., D.A. Krieger, M. Bacteller, and O.E. Maughan. 1982. HabitatSuitability Index Models: Black Crappie. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service.FWS/OBS-82/10.6.


[Black crappies were found to be susceptible to turbidity, and to require abundant cover forgrowth and reproduction, in the form of aquatic vegetation, and submerged trees, brush orinstream objects. Low velocity waters were preferred in such areas as pools andbackwaters.]

15

Eilers, H.P., A. Taylor, and W. Sanville. 1983. Vegetative Delineation of Coastal SaltMarsh Boundaries. Environmental Management 7:443-452.

Abstract: *Legislation mandating the protection of wetlands combined with current pressures toconvert them to other uses, emphasize the need to determine accurately a wetland-uplandboundary. We investigated six methods designed to establish such a boundary based onvegetation. Each method was applied to a common data set obtained from 295 quadrantsalong 22 transects between marsh and upland areas in 13 intertidal saline wetlands inOregon and Washington. The multiple occurrence, joint occurrence, and five percentmethods required plant species to be classified as salt marsh, upland, and non-indicator;cluster and similarity methods required no initial classification. Close agreement onwetland-upland boundaries determined by the six methods suggests that preclassification ofplants and collection of plant cover data may not be necessary to determine the boundary.

Erman, D.C., J.D. Newbold, and K.B. Roby. 1977. Evaluation of StreamsideBufferstrips for Protecting Aquatic Organisms. Technical Completion Report,Contribution #165. California Water Resources Center, University ofCalifornia, Davis, CA.

Abstract: *An evaluation of logging impacts on streams was based on an extensive survey during 1975of 62 northern California streams. Streams had been logged without stream protectionmeasures, had been logged with protective bufferstrips, had been affected by localizeddisturbances (such as logging road stream crossings), and some were unaffected streams.

Benthic invertebrate communities of disturbed and undisturbed streams were compared bydiversity index and ecological distance. Benthic invertebrate communities from streamslogged without protective measures were significantly different from communities ofunlogged (control) streams based on both diversity and ecological distance. Loggingimpacts were detected also in streams with buffer widths of less than approximately 30 m(98 ft). Streams with bufferstrips wider than 30 m (98 ft) did not display logging impacts. There was a direct correlation between increases in an index of diversity and increases inbuffer width, and hence probably the degree of stream protection increased with bufferwidths up to 30 meters (98 ft).

Invertebrate communities of logged or disturbed streams had a lower diversity index and ahigher population than unlogged streams. Increased populations were primarily in threetaxa - Baetis, Nemoura, and Chironomidae.

Communities in localized disturbances were significantly different from control streamsections. The differences were qualitative (i.e., different taxa) and thus contrast with thedifferences noted in logged or narrow buffered streams.

16

Stream invertebrates were far more effective in discerning logging impacts than the physicaland chemical parameters measured. Variation among watersheds and sampling errorcontributed to the failure of physical or chemical measures to detect logging impacts. Measurements of over twenty environmental variables from the streams are included, andgive an excellent catalogue of both disturbed and natural stream conditions in northernCalifornia.

Garbisch, E.W., Jr. 1977. Recent and Planned Marsh Establishment WorkThroughout the Contiguous United States--A Survey and Basic Guidelines.Contr. Rep. D-77-3 U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Exp. Sta., Vicksburg,Mississippi.

Abstract: *Information on deliberate marsh establishment work that is planned, underway, orcompleted throughout the contiguous United States 1970-1976 has been identifiedexcluding WES, through (1) literature review, (2) interviewing people who, during theperiod of May 1975 through January 1977, have become known to be potential sources ofpertinent information, and, (3) the completion of distributed information request forms byvarious correspondents.

Excluding U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) projects currentlyunderway, marsh establishment projects at 105 district locations have been completed for atleast 1 year and 14 projects are planned for the immediate future. Out of the 105 completedor continuing marsh establishment projects, 9 were totally unsuccessful (due to vandalism,Canada geese eat-out, wave exposure too severe for seeding, or site surface elevations toolow for seeding). Variation encountered in projects included 18 that existed in freshwateror nearly freshwater locations, 68 on the east coast, 17 on the gulf coast, 8 on the westcoast, and 12 inland; 59 were purely experimental, as opposed to applied or partly so. From information received and collated, practical guidelines for site preparation, marshestablishment, and site management and maintenance were developed and are discussed. The two most important factors for preparing a site for marsh establishment were surfaceslopes and surface elevations. Within the tidal zone, surface slopes would be developedsuch that they exhibit reasonable stabilities in the absence of vegetative cover. Surfaceelevations must be carefully considered in the design and planning of a project and tied inwith the various zones of marsh types existing in the region. Surface elevations are mostimportant and their acceptable tolerances most stringent in areas subject to tidal amplitudesof 2 ft or less. Long term consolidation of fine sediment types is not considered of practicalimportance in achieving final surface elevations within acceptable tolerances. Closecoordination between the site preparation and the marsh establishment stages of a project interms of time of year is considered important; however, the use of nursery plant stock mayalleviate the consequence of unacceptable marsh establishment because of unavoidabledelays in the site preparation.

17

All aspects of marsh establishment must be an integral part of the design and planning thetotal project. Selection of the plant species to be used in the various available elevationzones at the site must be governed by (1) the plant species known to exist within thesezones in natural marshes in the region, (2) the objectives of the project, (3) the relativegrowth rates and sediment stabilizing capabilities of the candidate plants, and (4) the relativefood value ratings of the candidate plants stock that can be successfully used at the site willdepend upon (1) the available surface elevations at the site, (2) the exposure of the site tovarious physical stresses, and (3) the time of planting. Properly developed nursery stock is considered superior to all other types for sites orsections of sites subjected to high wave and debris deposition stresses and for summer, fall,and winter plantings. Marsh establishment by seeding is considered feasible only in thespring, in sheltered or confined areas, and at elevations above mean tidal level (MTL)(preferably the upper 20% of the mean tidal range). Although exceptions are discussed, arule of thumb is that increasing the maturity of nursery transplant materials upon decreasingthe elevations in the tidal zone will lead to the greatest survival of transplants and the bestoverall plant establishment. Transplant spacing and fertilization requirements are discussed. Although fertilizations should be conducted for all marsh establishment work in sandsediments, the need for such fertilizations in other sediment types (silt-clay) is not readilydetermined.

Three principal maintenance and management requirements for marsh establishmentdetermined by the study are (1) removal of debris and litter depositions, (2) protectionagainst waterfowl depredation, and (3) fertilization. During the growing season,particularly for late spring and summer plants, algae, submerged aquatic plants, free-floatingaquatic plants, and/or sundry debris that have been washed and deposited throughout thedeveloping marsh, may have to be periodically removed. Otherwise, the affected plants maybe seriously impaired. Depending upon the prevailing populations of geese, and to a lesserextent other wildlife, marsh establishment sites may have to be protected by enclosures orother effective devices. Areas of marsh establishment sites subject to extended periods ofhigh wave stress may require annual maintenance fertilizations to prevent the marsh fromsuccumbing to the stress.

Gilliam, J.W., and R.W. Skaggs. 1988. Natural Buffer Areas and Drainage Control toRemove Pollutants from Agricultural Drainage Waters. pp. 145-148. In: J.A.Kusler, M. Quammen, and G. Brooks (eds.), ASWM Technical Report 3;Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts andLosses, October 8-10, 1986. US Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. EPA, and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.

Abstract: *Because rainfall exceeds evapotranspiration, water drains via surface or subsurface flowfrom all land on the Atlantic Coast. This water always contains some nitrogen, phosphorus,and sediment. Even when present in low concentrations in drainage water, nitrogen and

18

phosphorus can contribute to water quality problems in receiving streams and estuaries. For example, a forested watershed is generally considered to represent the minimum loss ofnutrients to drainage water. Yet it has been estimated that 47% of both the nitrogen andphosphorus input to the Chowan river in North Carolina comes from forested areas. Thisriver has experienced severe water quality problems in the past few years in the form ofalgae blooms caused by excess nutrients. Thus any increase in nutrient concentrations canbe a potential problem for downstream areas.

Our work has concentrated on the contribution of agricultural to nonpoint sources ofnutrients and sediment and methods of controlling this input. We first attempted to quantifythe amounts of nutrients leaving cultivated fields and to determine what factors controlledthese losses. Recent efforts have focused upon developing methods to minimizecontributions of nutrient to drainage water utilizing methods which are compatible withsustained high agricultural production. This paper summarizes some of these findings andcontains essentially the same information as an earlier summary (Gilliam and Skaggs, 1986. "Riparian Areas and Water Management to Control Nonpoint Pollutants." In: C. Y. Kuo(ed.), Effects of Upland and Shoreline Land Use on the Chesapeake Bay. VirginiaPolytechnical University, Blacksburg, Virginia).

Grismer, M.E. 1981. Evaluating Dairy Waste Management Systems Influence onFecal Coliform Concentration in Runoff. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State Univ.,Corvallis.

Abstract: *This paper examines the environmental factors influencing the die-off and transport of fecalcoliform bacteria present in wastes applied to the land surface. These factors are examinedspecifically for dairy waste management systems and the net effect each system has onrunoff water quality. A model is developed that considers the effects of precipitation,season, method of waste storage and application, die-off of the bacteria in storage, die-offof the bacteria on the land surface, infiltration of bacteria in the soil profile, soilcharacteristics, overland transport of bacteria (runoff), and buffer zones. The model is thenapplied to the Tillamook basin in northwestern Oregon to evaluate which wastemanagement procedures significantly decrease bacterial pollution potential in agriculturalrunoff. [No buffer widths are recommended.]

Groffman, P.M., A.J. Gold, T.P. Husband, R.C. Simmons, and W.R. Eddleman. 1990.An Investigation into Multiple Uses of Vegetated Buffer Strips. Publ. No.NBP-90-44, Dept. of Natural Resources Science, Univ. of Rhode Island,Kingston, RI.

Abstract: *While the use of buffer zones to protect wetlands and surface water bodies is mandated byRhode Island law, there is very little information available on the factors that control theeffectiveness of these zones under Rhode Island conditions. Research was needed to

19

determine the criteria that should be considered in the design and maintenance of bufferzones in the landscape. The goal of our study was to provide information on the suitabilityof any particular piece of ground as a "vegetated buffer strip (VBS)" for water qualityprotection and wildlife habitat given information on soils, vegetation, geomorphology andsurrounding land uses. For the water quality studies, our approach was to make intensive,site specific measurements of pollutant removal from surface and subsurface flow at a smallnumber of well instrumented buffer strips. We also developed a "microbial index" of bufferzone pollutant removal capacity that was then measured at a larger number of sites differingin soils, vegetation, geomorphology and surrounding land uses. The intensive site specificmeasurements of actual buffering activity were used to calibrate this index. For the wildlifestudies we determined species richness of birds and herpetofauna and described wildlifehabitat parameters in buffer strips. We then developed a model to prescribe bufferrequirements to protect wetland-dependent wildlife species.

Guidelines for Land Development and Protection of the Aquatic Environment[British Columbia]. 1978. Land Use Unit, Habitat Protection Division,Resource Services Branch; Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, PacificRegion, Fisheries & Marine Service, 1090 West Pender Street, Vancouver,British Columbia, V6E 2P1. Fisheries & Marine Service Technical Report No.807. 55 pp.

Abstract: **This document presents proposed technical guidelines for the protection of riparianecosystems from deleterious impacts of adjacent land development. The guidelinesrecommend that an adequate green strip, or buffer zone, be maintained in its natural statealong each side of a watercourse to preserve the aquatic habitat. For residentialdevelopment, the recommended buffer is the greater of 59 ft (18 m) from the streamcenterline, or 49 ft (15 m) from the high water mark. For industrial development, therecommended buffer is 98 ft (30 m). For steep slopes, the buffer should be extended, wherenecessary, to 30 ft (9 m) inland from the top of the slope for residential development, and49 ft (15 m) inland from the top of the slope for industrial development. Guidelines for theprotection of water quality and quantity for rivers and streams are outlined and illustrated,including detention and settling basins, swales, and sediment control measures. Generalconstruction guidelines are given for instream or streamside construction activity (typicallyrestricted to June, July, and August). Such activities include stream crossings (vehicular,pipe, aerial, and buried), storm sewer outfall structures, and erosion and flood controlmeasures.

Harris, R.A. 1985. Vegetative Barriers: An Alternative Highway Noise AbatementMeasure. Noise Control Engineering Journal 27:4-8.

Abstract: *Excessive highway noise levels affect almost 40 percent of this country's population. Efforts to solve a problem of this magnitude will obviously require a significant expenditure

20

of funds, unless innovative noise abatement measures are utilized. The ability of vegetationto reduce highway noise levels has long been ignored. A primary goal of this paper is topresent evidence that vegetation can be used as an effective highway noise barrier undercertain circumstances. The results of previous studies of the effects of vegetation onhighway traffic noise, as well as on-site field measurements conducted by the author, arepresented. In addition, an actual situation where vegetation was selected as an alternativehighway noise abatement measure is described.

Hart, R. 1981. Regulatory Definitions of Wetlands: Do They Maximize WetlandFunction? pp. 273-283. In: P. McCaffrey, T. Breemer, and S. Gatewood (eds.),Proceedings of a Symposium: Progress in Wetlands Utilization andManagement. Coordinating Council on the Restoration of the KissimmeeRiver Valley and Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Basin.

Abstract: **Preliminary, independent analysis of data collected from two of five studies conducted forthe U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi. Usingquantitative sampling of vegetation in transition zones between a variety of local wetlandhabitat types and the adjacent uplands to that wetland type, "the study was to provideinformation to develop improved methods of wetland boundary delineation." The two areasanalyzed were in coastal Georgia (in 5 wetland types: salt marsh, undisturbed freshwatermarsh, grazed freshwater marsh, swamp forest, and shrub wetland) and in west centralFlorida (in 8 wetland types: freshwater marsh, cypress dome, shrub swamp, riverine cypressswamp and marsh, bayhead swamp, mangrove swamp, and salt marsh). Belt transects wereused in both areas crossing from the wetland through the transition zone into the uplanduntil the vegetation was predominantly upland type. Length of transition zone, speciesdiversity, richness and distribution, and general characteristics were recorded. Species witha frequency of occurrence ≥ 20% were charted for each wetland type along the transectindicating the location of the respective transition zone. Percent number of species (trees,shrubs, and herbs) in each zone (wetland, transition, and upland) for each study area wasalso charted.

Preliminary information does indicate that the physiognomic diversity and added speciesdiversity of the transition zone may enhance wetland functions. "A significant difference inplant species composition is often sought in delineating wetland boundaries. One mightseek instead the point where contribution to wetland function is minimal...."

Heede, B.H. 1984. Overland Flow and Sediment Delivery: An Experiment with SmallSubdrainage in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests (Colorado, U.S.A.). J.Hydrology 72:261-273.

Abstract: *Overland flow and sediment delivery were insignificant on 14 small subdrainages ofsouthwestern Ponderosa pine forests. Sediment delivery from undisturbed forest floor

21

practically was nil. Sources for sediment production were roads and erosion pavements andwere not universally distributed on the watersheds. When undisturbed forest floor waslocated between the source area and the collector, the effect of the source area was offset. The data indicated that increased infiltration into the undisturbed forest floor wasresponsible by reducing overland flow. Most erosion pavements were believed to be theresult of selected timber harvest 42 years ago. Hypotheses on the development of thesepavements were proposed.

Heifetz, J., M.L. Murphy, and K.V. Koski. 1986. Effects of Logging on WinterHabitat of Juvenile Salmonids in Alaskan Streams. North American J. ofFisheries Management 6:52-58.

Abstract: **Effects of logging on preferred winter habitats of juvenile salmonids in southeasternAlaskan streams were assessed by comparing the area of preferred winter habitat in 54reaches of 18 streams. Three types of streams were sampled at each of six locations: astream in a mature undisturbed forest; a stream in a clear-cut area logged on at least onebank; and a stream in a clear-cut area with strips of forest (buffer strips) along the streambanks. In order to identify preferred winter habitats, we classified stream areas in 12 of 18streams into discrete habitat types and compared the density of salmonids within thesehabitat types with the average density of the entire reach. Most wintering coho salmon(Oncorhynchus kisutch), Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma), and steelhead (Salmo gairdneri)occupied deep pools with cover (e.g., upturned roots, accumulations of logs, and cobblesubstrate). Riffles, glides, and pools without cover were not used. Seventy-three percentof all pools were formed by large organic debris. Reaches in clear-cut areas without bufferstrips had significantly less area of pool habitat than did old-growth reaches. Buffer stripsprotected winter habitat of juvenile salmonids by maintaining pool area and cover withinpools. In some cases, blowdown from buffer strips added large organic debris to the streamand increased the cover within pools.

Hewett, J.D., and J.C. Fortson. 1982. Stream Temperature Under an InadequateBuffer Strip in the Southeast Piedmont. Wat. Resour. Bull. (AWRA) 18:983-988.

Abstract: *A paired watershed experiment on the southeastern Piedmont to determine the effect ofclearcutting loblolly pine on water quantity, quality, and timing has shown that stream watertemperatures were increased as much as 20°F (-6.7°C) even though a partial buffer strip oftrees and shrubs were left in place to shade the stream. Winter time minimum streamtemperatures were lowered as much as 10°F (-12.2°C) by the same treatment. A streamtemperature model now in use did not predict such elevated temperatures. The authorssuggest that forest cover reductions in areas of gentle land relief may elevate thetemperature of shallow ground water moving to the stream, even with a substantial bufferstrip in place.

22

Hickman, T., and R.F. Raleigh. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: CutthroatTrout. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.5.


[Cutthroat trout require streamside vegetation for cover, as a source of large organic debris,for reduction of silt, fines and water turbidity, and to maintain acceptable streamtemperatures. Cutthroat trout were found to be susceptible to turbidity > 35 ppm, movingto cover when this level is exceeded. Water temperatures > 22°C (72°F) inhibited thedistribution of the cutthroat trout, with preferred temperatures ranging from 9 to 12°C (48to 54°F). In most cases, optimum habitat can be maintained with buffer strips of 100 ft,80% of which is either well-vegetated or has stable rocky stream banks to provide erosioncontrol and maintain undercut stream banks. Canopy cover should provide 50-75% shadeat midday.]

Jacobs, T.C. and J.W. Gilliam. 1985. Riparian Losses of Nitrate from AgriculturalDrainage Waters. J. Environ. Qual. 14:472-478.

Abstract: *Increased nutrient levels in surface streams and eutrophication of some Coastal Plain watershas led to inquiries about both the amount and control of nitrate losses from agriculturalfields. Nitrate concentrations in shallow groundwaters beneath cultivated fields and in thedrainage waters from those fields were examined to determine the fate of nitrogen loss todrainage waters. From a Middle Coastal Plain watershed where well and moderately well-drained soils dominate agricultural fields, 10 to 55 kg ha-1 yr-1 NO3-N moved from thefields in subsurface drainage water. However, most fields are bordered by forested buffersbetween the cultivated areas and streams which consist of poorly and very poorly-drainedsoils covered by dense vegetation. The evidence strongly indicated that a substantial part ofthe nitrate in the drainage water was denitrified in the buffer strip and that assimilation byvegetation was insignificant. Buffer strips of > 16 m (53 ft) were effective for inducingsignificant losses of nitrate before drainage waters reached the stream. A field containingsubsurface drainage tubing which emptied into open ditches moved more nitrogen intosurface water than those fields without subsurface drainage improvements. From a LowerCoastal Plain watershed, a dense clay layer below the surface horizon reduced subsurface

23

drainage resulting in total losses form the field of only 6 to 12 kg ha-1 yr-1 NO3-N. Theselosses were mostly in surface runoff. The extensive floodplain of the natural stream had ahigh capacity to reduce large quantities of N but the low total loss from the watershed islargely a result of low input to the drainage water from nonpoint sources. Soils included inthis study were Typic Paleudults, Arenic Paleudults, Aquic Hapludults, and AericPaleudults.

Johnson, S.W., J. Heifetz, and K.V. Koski. 1986. Effects of Logging on theAbundance and Seasonal Distribution of Juvenile Steelhead in SomeSoutheastern Alaska Streams. North American J. of Fisheries Management6:532-537.

Abstract: *Eighteen streams in six locations in southeastern Alaska were examined for the effects oflogging on juvenile steelhead (Salmo gairdneri) populations. Three types of streams wereexamined at each location: a stream in undisturbed old-growth forest; a stream in a clear-cutarea with strips of forest (buffer strips) along the stream banks; and a stream in a clear-cutarea logged on at least one bank. Within each stream type, three reaches were sampled. Few juvenile steelhead were found in reaches where juvenile cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki)were present, and no juvenile steelhead were found in streams with a low-flow discharge (<0.06 m3/s). Only two study sites, Prince of Wales Island and Mitkof Island, had juvenilesteelhead in all three stream types. Fry (age 0) and parr (age I and older) were sampled insummer and winter at the Prince of Wales Island site; parr were sampled in summer at theMitkof Island site. Logging appeared to affect the growth of steelhead fry and theabundance and distribution of both fry and parr. On Prince of Wales Island, fry were moreabundant and larger in the clear-cut reaches than in the old-growth or buffered reaches. Parr density in summer was highest in the clear-cut reaches at both sites but, by winter, haddecreased 91% in the clear-cut reaches and had increased 100 and 400%, respectively, inthe old-growth and buffered reaches. Parr were migrating during the fall and winter;therefore, the effects of logging on their growth could not be assessed.

Jones, J.J., J.P. Lortie, and U.D. Pierce, Jr. 1988. The Identification andManagement of Significant Fish and Wildlife Resources in Southern CoastalMaine. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta, Maine.140 pp.

Abstract: *(Executive Summary)This report identifies and rates the value of wildlife and fisheries habitats for 17 towns insouth coastal Maine from Kittery north to Phippsburg. Inland and coastal wetlands, deerwintering areas, seabirds nesting islands, wading bird rookeries, eagle nest sites, osprey nestsites, least tern and piping plover nest sites, shorebird areas, coastal wildlife concentrationareas, seal haul-outs, and other special wildlife habitats were identified and mapped. Thesensitivity of each special habitat is discussed and recommendations are presented to

24

prevent or minimize the impacts of human activities on these areas. Maps are availablefrom local towns, the State Planning Office, and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheriesand Wildlife regional office.

A method for objectively determining the value of open space for wildlife is also included. The procedure is based on the diversity and abundance of species within 16 habitat typesand incorporates the special habitats listed above, total acreage, and scarcity of the habitattype. An example field evaluation form is included.

[The authors review the importance of riparian habitat to fish, birds and mammals. From afisheries habitat perspective, riparian vegetation along streams serves to regulate streamtemperature, stabilize stream banks, regulate nutrient input, provide invertebrates as fishfood, and provide cover. Riparian buffers also moderate runoff and flow rates, and preventsedimentation. Riparian buffers around lakes and ponds provide similar functions. Riparian habitat widths suggested in pertinent literature sources range from 98 ft (30 m) to141 ft (43 m).

Riparian habitat supports a greater diversity of birds in greater densities than does adjacentareas. In addition to providing nesting and feeding habitat, riparian buffers protect waterquality, ensuring habitat for invertebrates and fish that support shorebirds, wading birds andother animals. Riparian habitat widths necessary to maintain some breeding birdpopulations suggested in pertinent literature sources range from 246 ft (75 m) to 656 ft(200 m).

Riparian habitat is also valuable to mammals, with riparian ecosystem alteration havingsignificant adverse impact on small and large mammal species richness and abundance. Suggested riparian habitat widths necessary to maintain some mammal species populationsinclude 328 ft (100 m) for large mammals and 220 to 305 ft (67 to 93 m) for smallmammals.]

Kao, D.T.Y., B.J. Barfield, and A.E. Lyons, Jr. 1975. On-Site Sediment FiltrationUsing Grass Strips. pp. 73-82. In: National Symposium On Urban Hydrologyand Sediment Control, July 28-31, 1975. University of Kentucky, Lexington,KY.

Abstract: *The use of grassed areas as a sediment filter is proposed in this article for urbanconstruction sites. The characteristics of flow of shallow water depths were studiedanalytically based on the momentum balance principle and experimentally using artificialgrasses. The new technique developed in this study of fabricating the simulated grasses byimbedding plastic strips of various stiffness in molten paraffin in a random pattern is provena useful one. When the right flexibility of the plastic blades is chosen, a close simulation ofa given type of real grass property appears possible. The flow resistance (n vs. VR) modelproposed by Ree and Palmer was first used in the presentation of the experimental results of

25

this study and found to be unsatisfactory when flow depth is shallow. A new mathematicalmodel is proposed to relate the resistance factor to the blade Reynolds number. Theexperimental results also predicted high sediment filtration efficiency of grass filters. Tosolve the problems of sediment inundation and killing of the vegetation a new filterarrangement pattern which alternates the grass strips with bare ground strips is proposed. The preliminary test results conducted on the use of this pattern indicated that when theappropriate width ratio of the grass to bare ground strips is selected the filter remainsoperating with high trapping efficiency and all the trapped sediments were retained in thebare ground regions. [Results are primarily descriptive. No design procedure or widths areproposed.]

Karr, J.R. and I.J. Schlosser. 1978. Water Resources and the Land-Water Interface.Science 201:229-234.

Abstract: *(Introduction)Many channel management activities degrade rather than improve water quality and therebydecrease the effectiveness of nonpoint control programs. Our hypotheses are that (i)maintenance of more natural nearstream vegetation and channel morphology in agriculturalwatersheds can lead to significant improvements in water quality and stream biota, and (ii)the best management option for long-term benefit to society is an integrated effort involvingsound management of the land surface and stream channels.

The approach used is a multidisciplinary synthesis. Specifically, we evaluate (i) existingdata regarding the ability of nearstream vegetation to reduce nutrient and sediment transportfrom the terrestrial to the aquatic component of agricultural ecosystems, (ii) the effects ofnearstream vegetation on water temperature and its implications for water quality, (iii) theeffects of channel morphology on sediment locads, and (iv) the impact of nearstreamvegetation and channel morphology on stream biota. With this information we judge thefeasibility of using nearstream vegetation and channel morphology (5) to improve waterquality and quality of stream biota. Finally, we propose a generalized model (6) whichsuggests that society should approach planning for control of nonpoint pollution inagricultural watersheds with a multidisciplinary synthesis of best management practices. Effective nonpoint control will depend on the concept of "best management systems."

Koski, K.V., J. Heifetz, S. Johnson, M. Murphy, and J. Thedinga. 1985. Evaluation ofBuffer Strips for Protection of Salmonid Rearing Habitat and Implications forEnhancement. pp 138-155. In: Thomas J. Hassler (ed.), Proceedings: PacificNorthwest Stream Habitat Management Workshop, October 10-12, 1985.American Fisheries Society, Western Division. Humboldt State University,Arcata, California.

Abstract: **

26

The authors examine the effectiveness of buffer strips in protecting rearing habitat ofjuvenile salmonids from the effects of logging. Evaluation was through comparison ofhabitat and fish population density in old-growth, buffered and clear-cut reaches of streams. In summer, buffered and clear-cut reaches had more algae, benthos, and, as a result, moresalmonid fry (age 0) than old-growth reaches. In winter, old-growth and buffered reachescontained the most critical habitat (i.e., pools with cover) and had the highest densities ofparr. Clear-cut reaches had the least amount of debris and pool habitat, and consequently,had fewer parr than either buffered or old-growth reaches. Logging with buffer stripsappears to enhance fish production by increasing fry recruitment in summer while sustainingsurvival of parr in winter.

Krieger, D.A., J.W. Terrell, and P.C. Nelson. 1983 Habitat Suitability Information:Yellow Perch. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.55.


[Yellow perch are associated with the littoral zone of lakes and reservoirs where shorelinevegetation is present (optimally 25% cover). This vegetation provides for both cover andspawning. Riverine habitat for yellow perch requires pools and slack water areas along avegetated shoreline edge. High turbidity lowers visibility of prey and restricts zooplanktonto the upper water column, where they are unavailable for the juvenile yellow perch to eat. The high summer temperature lethal to the yellow perch is 32.2 °C (90°F).]

Lake, J., and J. Morrison. 1977. Environmental Impact of Land Use on WaterQuality: Final Report on the Black Creek Project. Allen County Soil andWater Conservation District, Fort Wayne, Indiana, and the US EPA, Region5, Great Lakes National Program Office, 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago,Illinois 60604. EPA-905/9-77-007-A, 94 pp.

Abstract: *This is a final non-technical summary of the Black Creek sediment control project. Thisproject is to determine the environmental impact of land use on water quality and hascompleted its four and one half years of watershed activity. The project, which is directedby the Allen County Soil and Water Conservation District, is an attempt to determine therole that agricultural pollutants play in the degradation of the water quality in the Maumee

27

River Basin and ultimately in Lake Erie. [The report concludes that buffer zones arebelieved to prevent erosion and serve as filters of surface runoff.]

Lovejoy, T.E. and D.C. Oren. 1981. The Minimum Critical Size of Ecosystems. pp. 7-12. In: R. L. Burgess and D. M. Sharpe (eds.), Forest Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes. Ecological Studies #41. Springer-Verlag: New York.310 pp.

Abstract: **The authors conclude that because natural areas are being fragmented by development, thebasic theory of island biogeography may be applied towards non-island environments inorder to establish the minimum critical size of ecosystems required to maintain biologicalintegrity. The report suggests that the size of habitat reserves should be dictated by thegoal of maintaining a functioning ecosystem, not strictly by species numbers. The dynamicsof an ecosystem may prevent managing the biological integrity of reserves at 100%, evenwith additional safety factors.

Lowrance, R., R. Todd, J. Fail, Jr., O. Hendrickson, Jr., R. Leonard, and L.Asmussen. 1984. Riparian Forests as Nutrient Filters in AgriculturalWatersheds. BioScience. 34:374-377.

Abstract: *Riparian (streamside) vegetation may help control transport of sediments and chemicals tostream channels. Studies of a coastal plain agricultural watershed showed that riparianforest ecosystems are excellent nutrient sinks and buffer the nutrient discharge fromsurrounding agroecosystems. Nutrient uptake and removal by soil and vegetation in theriparian forest ecosystem prevented outputs from agricultural uplands from reaching thestream channel. The riparian ecosystem can apparently serve as both a short- and long-termnutrient filter and sink if trees are harvested periodically to ensure a net uptake of nutrients.

Lynch, J.A., E.S. Corbett, and K. Mussallem. 1985. Best Management Practices forControlling Nonpoint-Source Pollution on Forested Watersheds. J. Soil andWater Conservation 40:164-167.

Abstract: *The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Forestry, developeda set of best management practices (BMPs) to limit and/or control nonpoint-sourcepollution from silvicultural activities. Nonpoint-source pollution in a forested watershed ischaracterized by changes in stream temperature turbidity/sediment levels, and nutrientconcentrations and export. A watershed study conducted on the Leading RidgeExperimental Watersheds in central Pennsylvania suggested that the BMPs were effective incontrolling nonpoint-source pollution from a 44.5-hectare (110 acre) commercial clearcut. Slight increases in stream temperature, turbidity, and nitrate and potassium concentrationswere observed, but these increases did not exceed drinking water standards. [One of the

28

BMPs was the maintenance of a protective buffer strip, varying in width from site to site,but generally at least 98 ft (30 m) on each side of the stream channel.]

Mahoney, D.L., and D.C. Erman. 1984. The Role of Streamside Bufferstrips in theEcology of Aquatic Biota. pp. 168-175. In: R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix(eds.), California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation, and ProductiveManagement.

Abstract: *Riparian vegetation is important as a source of food to stream organisms, as shade oversmall-order streams, and as a bank-stabilizing force to prevent excessive sedimentation andto intercept pollutants. Logging may significantly affect each of these factors unless properprotective measures are employed. Current research is underway on the recovery of smallnorthern Ca. streams after logging. Analysis of algal samples from 30 streams shows lightintensity and chlorophyll concentrations are major factors relating to logging intensity thataffect instream primary production. Transportable sediment from 24 streambeds has shownthat this measure of sediment is higher (P=.001) in logged and narrow buffered streams thanin controls 7 to 10 yrs after logging.

Martin, W.C., D.S. Noel, and C.A. Federer. 1984. Effects of Forest Clearcutting inNew England on Stream Chemistry. J. Environ Qual. 13:204-210.

Abstract: *Differences in stream chemistry between recently clearcut and nearby uncut watershedswere generally small in a wide variety of soil and forest types throughout New England. Water samples were collected during six periods of the year in 1978 and 1979 from 6entirely clearcut, 32 partially clearcut, and 18 uncut watersheds. The largest differencesthat could be attributed to harvesting occurred in entirely clearcut watersheds, especially inthe White Mountains of New Hampshire. In one area of the White Mountains, inorganic Nwas 4 times higher (2 mg/L), and Ca was 2 times higher (4 mg/L) in streams from a clearcutwatershed than a nearby uncut watershed. Elsewhere, only minor changes in streamchemistry resulted from cutting; the amount of the cutting response was of the samemagnitude as natural variations among streams draining similar watersheds. Clearcuttingless than entire watersheds, patch and strip cuts, and buffer strips along streams all appearto reduce the magnitude of changes in stream chemistry.

Martinez-Taberner, A. G. Moya, G. Ramon, and V. Forteza. 1990. LimnologicalCriteria for the Rehabilitation of a Coastal Marsh. The Albufera of Majorca,Balearic Islands. Ambio 19:21-27.

Abstract: *Mediterranean coastal zones have turned into popular leisure centers visited mainly bynorthern European tourists. The hotel industry has produced an economic boom in whatwere relatively undisturbed areas. Due to this fact studies dealing with the management and

29

preservation or rehabilitation of natural zones are essential to balance social and economicdevelopment. The aim is to preserve the natural environment and landscape in order toretain its appeal for visitors. The present work on the rehabilitation of the Albufera ofMajorca is an area within this context. The geomorphological evolution of the Albufera ofMajorca is discussed and the principal environmental components are analyzed. On thisbasis major criteria for rehabilitation are proposed; 1. To preserve the present dynamics ofthe lagoons and eliminate factors distributing lotic environments. 2. To increase open waterzones by progressively reintroducing preexisting lagoons in order to achieve an increase infood resources and in the number of habitats. 3. To change the present water circulationpattern fractalizing its route (1), i.e., allowing water to spread throughout the Albuferathereby decreasing its renewal rate. 4. To avoid environmental homogeneity and to attempta smoothening out of the environmental gradient so that it can be occupied by a largenumber of species with different environmental tolerances.

McMahon, T.E. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Coho Salmon. U.S. Dept.Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.49.


[Coho have four distinct life stages: adult, spawning/embryo/alevin, parr, and smolt. Habitat requirements must be met for each of these stages in order to ensure speciessurvival. Problems with accessibility to the spawning stream (blocked by dams, debris piles,and waterfalls occurring during low flows) and water quality were found to be the majorlimiting factors for adult coho in their upstream migration. Temperatures > 25.5°C (78°F)were found to be lethal, and the disease rate increased with temperatures > 12.7°C (55°F). Low returns of adult coho coincide with low summer flows and high winter flows. Increased production of coho was found when winter flows were stabilized and summerflows were increased. Young coho feed primarily on drifting aquatic insects and terrestrialinsects. Substrate composition, riffles, and riparian vegetation are the most importantfactors in the production and availability of aquatic and terrestrial insects. Young coho perunit area was greatest in pools > 0.3 m deep with large riffles upstream (gravel and rubblesubstrates), and the presence of insect drop and leaf litter from riparian vegetation. Coverconsisted of instream debris, undercut banks, overhead vegetation, logs, and roots. Theamount of wintering habitat was found to be a limiting factor in coho production. Areas ofthe river which were channelized or heavily grazed were found to have a very low presenceof coho biomass. Streamside vegetation helps to regulate stream temperature. Warm

30

winter temperatures from the lack of vegetation cover shift the period of emergence of fryand downstream migration of smolts to earlier and less favorable survival periods. Butcanopy cover > 90% was found to be an unsuitable habitat due to excessive enclosure.

Milligan, D.A. 1985. The Ecology of Avian Use of Urban Freshwater Wetlands inKing County, Washington. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.

Abstract: *The ecology of avian use of urban freshwater wetlands in King County, Washington wasexamined in order to determine what factors affected bird species use of these systems. Bird species use was found to be correlated with wetland habitat complexity. Combinationwetlands (those with three or more wetland classes) that had the highest number of plantcommunities presented had the highest bird use as measured by bird species richness, plantspecies richness, and more bird species breeding than in Open Water or Shrub-Scrubwetlands.

Different buffer widths were tested to determine their effects on bird communitycomposition. The amount of buffer was positively correlated with bird community responsevariables such as bird species diversity. The amount of buffered wetland edge proved tohave the strongest correlation. Furthermore, results showed there was only a minorincrease in predicted bird species response with the increased buffer widths of 50 ft (15 m),100 ft (31 m), and 200 ft (61 m).

Comparisons made between the created and natural Combination and Open Water wetlandsindicated that it is possible to simulate natural wetlands for wildlife habitat. Results servednot only as baseline biological information regarding the ecology of urban wetlands but alsoas the basis for design decisions when enhancing natural urban wetlands of when creatingurban wetlands. Design implications and recommendations are discussed.

Moring, J.R. 1982. Decrease in Stream Gravel Permeability After Clear-cut Logging:an Indication of Intragravel Conditions for Developing Salmonid Eggs andAlevins. Hydrobiologia 88:295-298.

Abstract: *Average gravel permeabilities decreased significantly in an Oregon, U.S.A., stream after82% of the drainage basin was clear-cut. Patterns remained statistically normal in a streamof an unlogged drainage basin and in a stream in a drainage area that was 25% clear-cut, butwith riparian buffer strips about 30 m (98 ft) wide left along the stream. It is cautioned thatdecreases in yearly permeability values can reflect adverse intragravel conditions fordeveloping salmonid eggs and alevins, even if other environmental changes, particularly theamount of sediment fines in gravel, are not as apparent.

31

Mudd, D.R. 1975. Touchet River Wildlife Study. Applied Research Section,Environmental Management Division, Washington Game Department. BulletinNo. 4.

Abstract: *A three-month wildlife study on the Touchet River was undertaken by the WashingtonGame Department in conjunction with the Bureau of Reclamation's Walla Walla Project,Touchet Division. The present characteristics, and amounts of riparian wildlife habitatalong the course of the Touchet River were determined, and six distinct habitat types werefound to exist. A wildlife index was determined for each habitat type, and width of thattype. Habitat Type I (natural riparian, predominantly mature) supported the majority of thewildlife, and a minimum width of 75 ft (23 m) provided maximum wildlife populations. Bird, mammal, and plant species were surveyed. Populations of the most important wildlifespecies, ring-necked pheasant, California quail, mourning dove, white-tailed deer, and muledeer, were studied in detail.

Murphy, M.L., J. Heifetz, S.W. Johnson, K.V. Koski, J.F. Thedinga. 1986. Effects ofClear-cut Logging With and Without Buffer Strips on Juvenile Salmonids inAlaskan Streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43:1521-1533.

Abstract:*To assess short-term effects of logging on juvenile Oncorhynchus kisutch, Salvelinusmalma, Salmo gairdneri, and Salmo clarki in southeastern Alaska, we compared fish densityand habitat in summer and winter in 18 streams in old-growth forest and in clear-cuts withand without buffers. Buffered reaches did not consistently differ from old-growth reaches;clearcut reaches had more periphyton, lower channel stability, and less canopy, poolvolume, large woody debris, and undercut banks than old-growth reaches. In summer, ifareas had underlying limestone, clear-cut reaches and buffered reaches with open canopyhad more periphyton, benthos, and coho salmon fry (age 0) than old-growth reaches. Inwinter, abundance of parr (age > 0) depended on amounts of debris. If debris was left inclear-cut reaches, or added in buffered reaches, coho salmon parr were abundant (10-22/100 m2). If debris had been removed from clear-cut reaches, parr were scarce (< 2/100m2). Thus, clear-cutting may increase fry abundance in summer in some streams byincreasing primary production, but may reduce abundance of parr in winter if debris isremoved. Use of buffer strips maintains or increases debris, protects habitat, allowsincreased primary production, and can increase abundance of fry and parr.

Naiman, R.J., H. Decamps, J. Pastor, and C.A. Johnston. 1988. The PotentialImportance of Boundaries to Fluvial Ecosystems. Journal of the N. AmericanBenthological Society 7:289-306.

Abstract: *Boundaries separating adjacent resource patches are dynamic components of the aquaticlandscape. This article addresses some fundamental questions about boundary structure and

32

function in lotic ecosystems. We give examples of longitudinal and lateral boundariesassociated with stream systems, demonstrate the application of chaos theory tounderstanding the inherent variability of boundary properties, and compare characteristics ofboundaries in an arctic-tropical transect. We conclude that studies of resource patches,their boundaries, and the nature of exchange with adjacent patches will improve ourperspective of drainage basin dynamics over a range of temporal and spatial scales.

Newbold, J.D., D.C. Erman, K.B. Roby. 1980. Effects of Logging onMacroinvertebrates in Streams With and Without Buffer Strips. Can. J. Fish.Aquat. Sci. 37:1076-1085.

Abstract: *The impact of logging with and without buffer strip protection on streammacroinvertebrates was examined through comparisons of community structure incommercially logged and control watersheds throughout northern California. Anonparametric test of community dissimilarities within matched blocks of two control andone or two treated stations showed significant (p< 0.05) logging effects on unprotectedstreams when Euclidean distance and mutual information were used as dissimilarity indices,but not when chord distance was used. Shannon diversity in unprotected streams was lower(p< 0.01) than in control (unlogged) streams; densities of total macroinvertebrate fauna andof Chironomidae, Baetis, and Nemoura were higher in unprotected streams than in controls(p< 0.05). Streams with narrow buffer strips (< 30 m; 98 ft) showed significant effects bythe Euclidean distance test, but diversity varied widely and was not significantly differentfrom that in either unprotected or control streams. Macroinvertebrate communities instreams with wide buffers (≥ 30 m; 98 ft) could not be distinguished from those of controlsby either Euclidean distance of diversity; however, diversity in wide-buffered streams wassignificantly greater than in streams without buffer strips, indicating effective protectionfrom logging effects.

Nieswand, G.H., R.M. Hordon, T.B. Shelton, B.B. Chavooshian, and S. Blarr. 1990.Buffer Strips to Protect Water Supply Reservoirs: A Model andRecommendations. Water Resources Bulletin 26:959-966.

Abstract: *Buffer strips are undisturbed, naturally vegetated zones around water supply reservoirs andtheir tributaries that are a recognized and integral aspect of watershed management. Thesestrips can be very effective in protecting the quality of public potable water supplyreservoirs by removing sediment and associated pollutants, reducing bank erosion, anddisplacing activities from the water's edge that represent potential sources of nonpointsource pollutant generation. As part of a comprehensive watershed management protect forthe State of New Jersey, a parameter-based buffer strip model was developed forapplication to all watersheds above water supply intakes or reservoirs. Input requirementsfor the model include a combination of slope, width , and time of travel. The application ofthe model to a watershed in New Jersey with a recommended buffer strip width that ranges

33

from 50 to 300 feet, depending upon a number of assumptions, results in from 6 to 13percent of the watershed above the reservoir being occupied by the buffer.

Noel, D.S., C. W. Martin, and C.A. Federer. 1986. Effects of Forest Clearcutting onNew England in Stream Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton. EnvironmentalManagement, 10:661-670.

Abstract: *Clearcutting may alter stream biota by changing light, temperature, nutrients, sedimentparticle size, or food in the stream. We sampled macroinvertebrates during late summer of1979 in first and second order headwater streams draining both two- and three-year-oldclearcuts and nearby uncut reference areas in northern New England, USA. Periphytonwere sampled throughout the summer by placing microscope slides in these streams for 13-37 days. Periphyton cell densities on these slides following incubation were about six timeshigher in cutover than in reference streams. Green algae (Chlorophyceae) accounted for ahigher proportion of total cell numbers in cutover than in reference streams, whereasdiatoms (Bacillariophyceae) dominated the reference streams. The macroinvertebratedensity in cutover streams was 2-4 times greater than in the reference streams, but thenumber of taxa collected was similar in both cutover and reference streams. Highernumbers of mayflies (Ephemeroptera) and/or true flies (Diptera) in the cutover streamsaccounted for the difference. Because nutrient concentrations in the cutover streams werenearly the same as those in the reference streams, these differences in macroinvertebratesand periphyton densities were apparently caused by higher light levels and temperature inthe streams in the clearcuts. Leaving buffer strips along the streams will reduce changes instream biology associated with clearcutting.

Noss, R.F. 1983. A Regional Landscape Approach to Maintain Diversity. BioScience33:700-706.

Abstract: *Land managers have traditionally assumed that achieving maximum local habitat diversitywill favor diversity of wildlife. Recent trends in species composition in fragmentedlandscapes suggest, however, that a more comprehensive view is required for perpetuationof regional diversity. A regional network of preserves, with sensitive habitats insulatedfrom human disturbance, might best perpetuate ecosystem integrity in the long term.

Noss, R.F. 1987. Corridors in Real Landscapes: A Reply to Simberloff and Cox.Conservation Biology 1:159-164.

Abstract: *Habitat corridors have become popular in land-use and conservation strategies, yet few dataare available to either support or refute their value. Simberloff and Cox (1987) havecriticized what they consider an uncritical acceptance of corridors in conservation planning.

34

Any reasonable conservation strategy must address the overwhelming problem of habitatfragmentation. Although Simberloff and Cox use island analogies to illustrate advantages ofisolation, these analogies do not apply directly to problems in landscape planning. Geneticsalso does not offer unequivocal advice, but the life histories of wide-ranging animals (e.g.,the Florida panther) suggest that the maintenance or restoration of connectivity in thelandscape is a prudent strategy. Translocation of individuals among reserves, considered bySimberloff and Cox a viable alternative to natural dispersal, is impractical for wholecommunities of species that are likely to suffer from problems related to fragmentation.

Many of the potential disadvantages of corridors could be avoided or mitigated by enlargingcorridor widths or by applying ecologically sound zoning regulations. Corridors are not thesolution to all our conservation problems, nor should they be used as a justification for smallreserves. But corridors can be a cost-effective complement to the strategy of large andmultiple reserves in real-life landscapes.

Omernik, J.M., A.R. Abernathy, and L.M. Male. 1981. Stream Nutrient Levels andProximity of Agricultural and Forest Land to Streams: Some Relationships. J.Soil Water Conservation 36:227-231.

Abstract: *The effectiveness of forested buffer strips for controlling nutrient loss from agricultural landto streams is not well documented. To clarify this effectiveness, an attempt was made todetermine whether considering the proximity of two land use types (agriculture and forest)to streams improved the ability to predict nutrient levels using the proportion of watershedsoccupied by each land use. Results indicated that considering the proximity of these landuses did not improve this predictive ability. The reason may be that the long-term effects ofnear-stream vegetation in reducing stream nutrients is negligible.

Overcash, M.R., S.C. Bingham, and P.W. Westerman. 1981. Predicting RunoffPollutant Reduction in Buffer Zones Adjacent to Land Treatment Sites.Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), pp.430-435.

Abstract: **Grass buffer zones (filter strips) were examined as a Best Management Practice to controlnonpoint source pollution from animal waste, using one-dimensional modeling of overlandflow. Three major factors contributed to the effectiveness of the grass buffer strips:pollutant concentration in the runoff from the waste area, dilution, and infiltration rates. Additional factors considered were: the nature of grass vegetation, chemical diffusion,settling, topography, and rainfall intensity. A buffer area-length to waste-area length ratio(B/W) of 1.0 was concluded to be sufficient to reduce animal waste concentrations by 90%to 100%

35

Palfrey, R. and E.H. Bradley, Jr. 1981. Natural Buffer Areas: An AnnotatedBibliography. Coastal Resources Division, Tidewater Administration,Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Tawes State Office Building,Annapolis, Maryland 21401.

Abstract: **This annotated bibliography contains and supplements information from a study entitled TheBuffer Areas Study, which was conducted during the first half of 1981. The bibliographycontains information on scientific studies addressing the utilization of buffer areas in theprotection of wetlands, streams, and tidal waters. It summarizes the content andconclusions of the selected documents reviewed to obtain information for The Buffer AreasStudy.

Palfrey, R. and E.H. Bradley, Jr. 1981. The Buffer Area Study. Coastal ResourcesDivision, Tidewater Administration, Maryland Department of NaturalResources, Tawes State Office Building, Annapolis, MD 21401.

Abstract: *Buffer areas are zones of undeveloped vegetated land extending from the banks or highwater mark of a water course or water body to some point landward. Their purpose is toprotect the water resources, including wetlands, they adjoin from the negative impacts ofadjacent land use.

This report reviews these potentially detrimental impacts and notes how buffer areas havebeen shown to negate or reduce those impacts. Relevant literature documenting thesepositive functions of buffer areas is cited, and information is presented regarding theenvironmental factors which determine how effectively buffer areas function. This reportconcludes with recommendations regarding the establishment of buffer areas in the State ofMaryland.

Petersen, R.C., Jr., B.L. Madsen, M.A. Wizlbach, C.H.D. Magadza, A. Paarlberg, A.Kullberg and K.W. Cummins. 1987. Stream Management: Emerging GlobalSimilarities. Ambio 16:166-179.

Abstract: *Stream management throughout the world requires a holistic, ecosystem approach, that ispartly centered on stream riparian zones, but also involves fisheries management and factorsexogenous to the stream. The importance of the riparian zone as a buffer between thestream and watershed is illustrated by examples from Denmark and The Netherlands whereagricultural use of the watershed threatens surface-water quality. Additional examples fromwestern Jamaica, Zimbabwe and the United States illustrate the ecological value as well ashistorical mismanagement of streams. The economic value of riparian zones as nutrientfilters is discussed with examples from agricultural lands in Sweden. The importance of aholistic approach is illustrated by the oncho (river blindness disease) program in western

36

Africa where disease control may threaten riparian zones and the worldwide introduction ofexotic fishes which threatens indigenous species. The holistic approach is extended to aglobal perspective where factors wholly outside the watershed may affect streams. Examples are deforestation in western Africa that causes desertification in Zimbabwe andlong-range transport of air pollutants that causes acidification of running waters inScandinavia.

Raleigh, R.F. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Brook Trout. U.S. Dept. Int.,Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.24.


[Brook trout were found to be susceptible to even modest amounts of turbidity, whichreduces the ability to search for food. Warm water temperatures were found to be thesingle most limiting factor in the distribution and reproduction of brook trout. The requiredtemperature in the spawning gravel beds ranged from 4.5 to 10 °C (40 to 50 °F). Lethaltemperatures for adult brook trout were above 20°C (68°F) with the optimal temperaturenot exceeding 15.6°C (60°F). A 30 m deep (100 ft) vegetated buffer zone with 50 to 75%midday shade was found to be optimal. 80% of this buffer should be well-vegetated forerosion control, for maintaining the undercut bank areas, and for providing essential coverfor the brook trout along the shoreline edge.]

Raleigh, R.F., T. Hickman, R.C. Solomon, and P.C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat SuitabilityInformation: Rainbow Trout. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.60.


37

[Rainbow trout were found to require clear, cold waters, 12 to 18°C optimum (54 to 64°F),in both lakes and rivers. Lethal temperature limits were < 0°C (32°F) and > 25°C (77°F). Rainbow trout require silt-free rocky substrate (gravel) for both spawning and cover. Optimal gravel contains ≤ 5% fines. With fines ≥ 30%, low survival of embryos andemerging yolk sac fry occurs. Also essential for the rainbow trout is cover in the form ofoverhanging bank cover, overhanging vegetation, submergent vegetation, instream objects(small boulders, upturned roots, logs, and debris piles), pool depth (≥ 15 cm), and surfaceturbulence (riffles). A buffer strip 30 m (98 ft) wide providing 50 to 75% midday shadewas found to be the optimal condition. Of the 30 m, (98 ft) 80% should be eitherestablished vegetation or stable rock to provide erosion control for the stream bank.]

Rice, P.D. 1984. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Dabbling Ducks. U.S. Dept. Int.,Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/.


[Optimal dabbling duck habitat is provided by wetlands with 50% cover and 50% openwater. Unsatisfactory nesting conditions result from silt-covered shallows, broad mud flats,and absence of submergent vegetation in open water. Preferred wetland nesting habitat isbulrush and cattail, and preferred upland cover is tall grass and brush.]

Richards, D.L., and L.M. Middleton. 1978. Best Management Practices for Erosionand Sediment Control. Federal Highway Administration Rpt. No. FHWA-HD-15-1.

Abstract: *Erosion and sediment control are an important consideration in the location, design andconstruction of a highway. Erosion and sediment control plans should be developed priorto construction and effective control measures utilized during construction.

This manual is a compilation of the erosion and sediment control measures which have beensuccessfully used by Region Fifteen of the Federal Highway Administration. The measurescovered include silt fences, brush barriers, diversion channels, sediment traps, check dams,slope drains, and temporary berms. A section on water quality monitoring is also included.

38

Riparian Habitat Committee, (WDAFS). 1982. The Best Management Practices forthe Management and Protection of Western Riparian Stream Ecosystems.Western Div., Amer. Fisheries Society, 574.5263/AMERICA.

Abstract: **This paper is a follow-up to the Riparian Habitat Committee position paper (1980) entitled"Management and the Protection of Western Riparian Stream Ecosystems." The BestManagement Practices (BMP) discussed were written as a guide for agencies, landowners,and individuals in the management, maintenance, and protection of western riparian streamecosystems. For erosion control adjacent to mine operations, the establishment ofvegetative buffer strips is recommended.

Robertson, R.J., and N.J. Flood. 1980. Effects of Recreational Use of Shorelines onBreeding Bird Populations. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 94:131-138.

Abstract: *Field studies were conducted at six lakes in southernOntario to investigate the effects on breeding bird populations of the disturbance caused byrecreational use of shorelines. The degree of land development observed created extensiveedge habitat but had only moderate effects on other vegetation characteristics. Althoughthe disturbed areas had significantly more birds, they tended to have lower species diversitythan more natural areas. Species richness remained fairly constant in both disturbed andisolated study areas whereas species evenness was significantly lower in the former. Thespecies composition of bird populations in study areas was also affected by disturbance.Nesting success of Common Loons (Gavia immer) and Eastern Kingbirds (Tyrannustyrannus) was lower in disturbed areas.

Rogers, Golden & Halpern, Inc. 1988. Wetland Buffer Delineation Method. Divisionof Coastal Resources, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,CN 401, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. 69 pp.

Abstract: *A buffer delineation method has been developed to protect tidal and non-tidal wetlands inthe coastal zone of New Jersey. This study is based on existing information and identifiesappropriate buffer widths to maintain the quality of water entering wetlands. It relies onboth field and in-house data that can be objectively evaluated.

The delineation method considers potential water quality impacts and mitigating factors todetermine optimum buffer width. Buffering capability is determined based on a combined,case-by-case evaluation of slope, vegetation, and soil characteristics adjacent to thewetland. Impacts of low, moderate, and high intensity development are evaluated based ontype of development and impervious coverage. The method also identifies situations inwhich a buffer width is automatically assigned based on conditions that warrant special

39

consideration. The method was successfully tested for replicability and reasonablenessunder a variety of wetland and development scenarios.

In New Jersey, the possible range of buffer width varies depending on the type of wetland:the maximum width of buffers for tidal and non-tidal wetlands, and the minimum bufferwidth for non-tidal wetlands have been set by law and policy. A User's Guide to the bufferdelineation method was developed to ensure that derived buffer widths comply with currentstate law and policy.

Roman, C.T. and Good, R.E. 1983. Wetlands of the New Jersey Pinelands: Values,Functions and Impacts (Section One). In: Wetlands of the New JerseyPinelands: Values, Functions, Impacts, and a Proposed Buffer DelineationModel. Division of Pinelands Research, Center for Coastal and EnvironmentalStudies, Rutgers - the State University, New Brunswick, NJ. 123 pp.

Abstract: *(Preface)This document is a reprint of section one of a June 1983 report entitled "Wetlands of theNew Jersey Pinelands: Values, Functions, Impacts, and a Proposed Buffer DelineationModel." 1 This literature review section on Pinelands wetlands values, functions andimpacts provided much of the scientific foundation for the development of a wetland uplandbuffer delineation model. The 1983 proposed model underwent a one year field test,followed by revisions based on the test results. 2 The revised buffer delineation model ispresented as a separate document. 3 This model is currently being used as a guideline forevaluating wetland-related applications by the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, the stateagency responsible for management and planning in the Pinelands region. Because theproposed buffer model is now obsolete, it seems appropriate to reprint the literature reviewsection as a separate document.

1 Roman, C.T. and R.E. Good. (1983) "Wetlands of the New Jersey Pinelands: Values,Functions, Impacts, and a Proposed Buffer Delineation Model." Division of Pinelandsresearch, Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies, Rutgers - the State University,New Brunswick, NJ. 123 pp. 2 Roman, C.T. and R.E. Good. (1984) "Buffer Delineation Model for New JerseyPinelands Wetlands: Field Test." Division of Pinelands Research, Center for Coastal andEnvironmental Studies, Rutgers - the State University, New Brunswick, NJ. 68 pp. 3 Roman, C.T. and R.E. Good. (1985) "Buffer Delineation Model for New JerseyPinelands Wetlands." Division of Pinelands Research, Center for Coastal and EnvironmentalStudies, Rutgers - the State University, New Brunswick, NJ. 73 pp

Roman, C.T. and Good, R.E. 1986. Delineating Wetland Buffer Protection Areas:The New Jersey Pinelands Model. pp. 224-230. In: Jon A. Kusler and PatriciaRiexinger (eds.), Proceedings of the National Wetland Assessment Symposium,June 17-20, 1985. Portland, Maine. ASWM Technical Report 1.

40

Abstract: **The article synthesizes the authors' previous work on developing a model for the NewJersey Pinelands ("Wetlands of the New Jersey Pinelands: Values, Functions, Impacts, and aProposed Buffer Delineation Model," 1983; "Buffer Delineation Model for New JerseyPinelands Wetlands: Field Test," 1984; and "Buffer Delineation Model for New JerseyPinelands Wetlands," 1985).

The model and standards for assessing buffer widths are based on three general factors:wetland quality, impact assessment, and land use. The New Jersey ComprehensiveManagement Plan (CMP) requires a 300 foot (91 m) buffer unless an assessment of "non-significant impact" has been determined, at which point the required buffer may be reducedto as low as 50 feet (15 m). The 300 foot (91 m) base width is assumed to ensureprotection of the wetland quality from high impact land development. The procedure forimplementing the model, the rating system for determining wetland quality, and buffer widthranges are documented. The authors conclude with recommendations for other regions,based a on general conclusion that all wetland protection provisions should strive to includea buffer protection provision.

Schroeder, R.L. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Pileated Woodpecker. U.S.Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.39. 15 pp.

Abstract: *This document is part of the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Model Series (FWS/OBS-82/10), which provides habitat information useful for impact assessment and habitatmanagement studies. Several types of habitat information are provided. The Habitat UseInformation Section is largely constrained to those data that can be used to derivequantitative relationships between key environmental variables and habitat suitability. Thehabitat use information provides the foundation for the HSI model that follows. In addition,this same information may be useful in the development of other models more appropriateto specific assessment or evaluation needs. [In the results of a Virginia study, most Pileated Woodpeckers rested no farther than 150 m(492 ft) from water, and most nests were within 50 m (164 ft) of water. Average distancebetween water sources was 600 m (1969 ft). Minimum nesting area was 130 ha (320acres).]

Schroeder, R.L. 1984. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Black Brant. U.S. Dept. Int.,Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.63.

Abstract: *This document is part of the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Model Series (FWS/OBS-82/10), which provides habitat information useful for impact assessment and habitatmanagement studies. Several types of habitat information are provided. The Habitat Use

41

Information Section is largely constrained to those data that can be used to derivequantitative relationships between key environmental variables and habitat suitability. Thehabitat use information provides the foundation for the HSI model that follows. In addition,this same information may be useful in the development of other models more appropriateto specific assessment or evaluation needs.

[Preferred black brant winter habitats are large tidal lagoons with openings to the sea,containing eelgrass beds and sea grass (ulva) that are exposed during the tidal cycle or areavailable by "tip-up" feeding (since black brants do not dive) in 1 foot deep water. Humanactivity is a major limiting factor for black brant, and significant aquatic and terrestrialbuffers are necessary for protection. Buffer zones from human activities are divided intothree categories. Highly disruptive activities such as helicopter flights, shellfish harvesting,or sculling require a 183 m (600 ft) buffer zone. Moderately disruptive activities, such ashunting and flights of fixed wing aircraft, require a buffer zone of 137 m (450 ft). Low-level disruption includes general swimming, boating, fishing, and shoreline development andrequires a 91 m (300 ft) buffer zone.]

Shisler, J.K., P.E. Waidelich, and H.G. Russell. 1985. Coastal Wetlands: WetlandsBuffer Delineation Study - Task 1. Mosquito Research & Control, New JerseyAgricultural Experiment Station, and Rutgers University, New Brunswick,New Jersey 09803.

Abstract: *(Intent of Study)Recently, controversy has arisen over the need for buffer zones between wetlands anddeveloped upland areas. Criteria are needed for the establishment of buffer zones for theprotection of specific wetland functions. The intent of Task 1 was to review the literatureon wetlands and buffer zones. From this literature search, a definition of a buffer zone wasdeveloped. Based on this definition, a rationale for the existence of a buffer wasdetermined. Also included as part of Task 1 are interim guidelines for wetlands regulation,detailed sampling methods, and a listing of study sites.

Shisler, J.K. et. al. 1987. Coastal Wetland Buffer Delineation. New Jersey Dept. ofEnvironmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources, Trenton, NewJersey. 102 pp.

Abstract: **Under contract from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the authorsundertook a study to assess the effectiveness of existing buffers in limiting the level ofwetland disturbance, and to develop management guidelines for the implementation ofbuffers in coastal wetlands in developing areas. One hundred study sites were selected inthree wetland types (salt marsh, tidal freshwater marsh and hardwood swamp) and in fourland use categories (agriculture/recreation, single family/low density residential, high densityresidential, and commercial/industrial). An index of direct human disturbance (DHD) was

42

developed from measurements of physical wetland disturbance which allowed forcomparison of relative numeric representations of wetland degradation. Levels ofdisturbance were compared between similar wetland protected by buffers of different widthsin different land use categories, while community indices were compared between disturbedand undisturbed wetland of similar type.

With all study sites, disturbance was found to be greater in high density land uses than inlow density land uses. The primary salt marsh disturbance occurred during the constructionperiod. Disturbance of tidal freshwater marsh, the most disturbed of the three wetlandtypes, was typically caused by encroachment from adjacent residential uses, e.g., thedepositing of refuse on the wetland, and children destroying wetland vegetation. Hardwoodswamp disturbance also related to the depositing of refuse; "extension of property" by theadjacent landowners was also a problem. The authors conclude that buffers, in order to beeffective at minimizing human disturbance in wetland systems, must be established prior toand during the development of adjacent areas. Wetland contiguous with certain speciallands (e.g., endangered species habitat) require particular consideration. Recommendedbuffer widths for low intensity land uses (<30% impervious cover) were 50 ft (15 m) forsalt marshes, 100 ft (31 m) for tidal freshwater marshes, and 50 ft (15 m) for hardwoodswamps. Recommended buffer widths from high intensity land uses (> 30% imperviouscover) were 100 ft (31 m) for salt marshes, 150 ft (46 m) for tidal freshwater marshes, and100 ft (31 m) for hardwood swamps. The study further stressed site evaluation on a case-by-case basis, and outlined additional guidelines for establishing buffer zones.

Simberloff, D., and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and Costs of Conservation Corridors.Conservation Biology 1:63-71.

Abstract: *There are few controlled data with which to assess the conservation role of corridorsconnecting refuges. If corridors were used sufficiently, they could alleviate threats frominbreeding depression and demographic stochasticity. For species that require moreresources than are available in single refuges, a network of refuges connected by corridorsmay allow persistence. Finally, a corridor, such as a riparian forest, may constitute animportant habitat in its own right. A dearth of information on the degree to which of thesepotential advantages will be realized in any particular case. Some experimental field studiessuggest that certain species will use corridors, although lack of controls usually precludes afirm statement that corridors will prevent extinction.

Corridors may have costs as well as potential benefits. They may transmit contagiousdiseases, fires, and other catastrophes, and they may increase exposure of animals topredators, domestic animals, and poachers. Corridors also bear economic costs. Forexample, a bridge that would maintain a riparian corridor costs about 13 times as much perlane-mile as would a road that would sever the corridor. Also, per-unit-area managementcosts may be larger for corridors than for refuges. It may be cheaper to manage some

43

species by moving individuals between refuges rather than by buying and maintainingcorridors.

Each case must be judged on its own merits because species-environment interactions differ. As an example, we used the case of the Florida panther (felis concolor coryi), of whichthere remain about 30. The Florida panther's inbreeding problems could possibly bestemmed somewhat by a corridor system, but it is far from certain that even an extensivesystem will save this animal, and costs of such a system would lessen the resources thatcould be devoted to land acquisition and other means of aiding many other threatenedspecies.

Sinicrope, T.L., P.G. Hine, R.S. Warren, and W.A. Niering. 1990. Restoration of anImpounded Salt Marsh in New England. Estuaries 13:25-30.

Abstract: *The restoration of a 20 ha tidal marsh, impounded for 32 yr, in Stonington, Connecticutwas studied to document vegetation change 10 yr after the reintroduction of tidal flushing. These data were then compared to a 1976 survey of the same marsh when it was in itsfreshest state and dominated the Typha angustifolia. Currently, T. angustifolia remainsvigorous only along the upland borders and in the upper reaches of the valley marsh. Livecoverage of T. angustifolia has declined from 74% to 16% and surviving stands are mostlystunted and depauperate. Other brackish species have also been adversely effected, exceptfor Phragmites australis which has increased. In contrast, the salt marsh species Spartinaalterniflora has dramatically expanded, from <1% to 45% cover over the last decade. Locally, high marsh species have also become established, covering another 20% of themarsh.

Smardon, R.C. 1978. Visual-cultural Values of Wetlands. pp. 535-544 In: P.E.Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (eds.), Wetland Functions and Values:The State of Our Understanding. American Water Resources Association.

Abstract: *The paper addresses the visual-cultural values, or the visual, recreational, and educationalvalues, of inland and coastal wetlands in the United States. An "ecological aesthetics"perspective is proposed, based on evidence that information about natural and culturalprocesses associated with a landscape increases the aesthetic value of that landscape for theperceiver. Single significant visual-cultural values, as well as composite values, of wetlandsare reviewed. The critical literature is reviewed and detailed findings are discussed for (1)wetlands in comparison to other landscapes, (2) specific types of wetlands compared toeach other, (3) wetlands and their immediate surroundings, (4) wetlands and the micro-landscape within, and (5) dynamic phenomena associated with wetlands. Little substantiveresearch concerning visual-cultural values of wetlands has been done. Existing research isrestricted to the central northeastern, southern, and west coast regions of the United States. Priorities and key questions for visual-cultural wetland research are suggested.

44

Soil Conservation Service. 1982. Filter Strip (acre). Soil Conservation Service (SCS),Filter Strip 393.

Abstract: **This document contains the Soil Conservation Service guidelines for planningconsiderations and design criteria for strips of vegetation to remove sediment, organicmatter, and farm pollutants and waste water to protect streams, ponds, and lakes, and aboveconservation practices such as terraces or diversions. Buffer strip widths are recommendedfor croplands, concentrated livestock runoff, overland flow treatment of liquid wastes, andon forested land, partially based on the slope of the land. Buffer widths are established at10 ft for slopes < 1% and proportionately greater up to at least 25 ft for 30% slopes.

Sousa, P.J., and A.H. Farmer. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Wood Duck.U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.43. 27 pp.


[A ratio of 50-75% cover to 25-50% open water is recommended for ideal breeding andbrood rearing habitat. Wood duck nest in tree cavities and, to reach maximum production,need 20 acres of nesting habitat for each acre of brood habitat. Nest sites near water arepreferred. In Massachusetts, nests were located within 183 m (600 ft) from water; inMinnesota, nest trees ranged from 0 to 350 m (0 to 1150 ft) of water. Nest cavities musthave an entrance diameter of at least 3.5 inches to allow wood ducks to use them. Isolatedwetlands less than 4 ha (10 acres) in size are considered marginal wood duck habitat unlessadjacent wetlands are closer than 46 m (150 ft).]

Steinblums, I., H. Froehlich, and J. Lyons. 1982. Designing Stable Buffer Strips forStream Protection. U.S. Forest Service, 2520 Watershed Protection andManagement.

Abstract: *Survival and effectiveness were evaluated for forty streamside buffer strips in the CascadeMountains of western Oregon. Stream shading was found to be related to fourcharacteristics of the buffer strip, while survival was a function of seven vegetation andtopographic variables. These relationships are expressed in predictive equations that may

45

be used with on-site evaluation for designing proposed strips. The equations aid assessmentof stream protection in the proposed harvest design and make rapid evaluation of designmodifications possible. All options can be quantified and the most suitable design chosen. [The authors define buffer strip effectiveness in terms of stream shading, which wasquantified by measuring angular canopy density (ACD). The relationship of ACD to bufferstrip width was curvilinear, yielding ACD values of 17 and 73% respectively for bufferwidths of 20 and 100 ft.]

Stuber, R.J., G. Gilbert, and O.E. Maughan. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models:Largemouth Bass. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.16.


[Optimum habitat consists of large, slow-moving rivers or pools (≥ 60% of habitat),relatively clear, shallow (≤ 6 m deep), with soft bottoms, some aquatic vegetation, withoverwintering areas (40 to 60% of lake at least 15 m deep), and shoreline vegetation (adultlargemouth bass typically fed near the vegetation). Additional optimal conditions for adultlargemouth bass include cover vegetation, log debris, and brush, with cover ranging from40 to 60% (> 60% reduced prey). Amount of cover was found to be positively correlatedwith the number of fry present. Optimal fry habitat contained cover from 40 to 80%. Optimal temperature for fry growth ranged from 27 to 30 °C (80.6 to 86°F).]

Swanston, D.N., and F.J. Swanson. 1976. Timber Harvesting, Mass Erosion, andSteepland Forest Geomorphology in the Pacific Northwest. In: D.R. Coates(ed.), Geomorphology and Engineering. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross,Stroudsberg, PA.

Abstract:This chapter defines the large-scale movements of material down slopes--creep, slump,debris avalanche, and debris torrent--and reviews research done in the Pacific Northwest onthe destabilizing effects of clear-cutting and road-building.

Swift, L.W. and J.B. Messer. 1971. Forest Cuttings Raise Temperatures of SmallStreams in the Southern Appalachians. J. Soil Wat. Conserv. 26:111-116.

Abstract: *

46

Stream temperatures were measured during six forest-cutting treatments on small (23 to 70acre) [9.3 to 28.3 ha] watersheds in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Where foresttrees and all understory vegetation were completely cut, maximum stream temperatures insummer increased from normal 66°F to 73°F (19°C to 23°C)or more. Some extremetreatments raised temperatures more than 12°F (-11°C) above normal. Where streambankvegetation was uncut or had regrown, summer maximums remained unchanged or declinedfrom temperatures measured under uncut mature hardwood forest. Increases in streamtemperature were judged to degrade water quality and constitute thermal pollution because,after each clearcut, water temperatures exceeded optimum levels for trout habitat.

Swift, L.W. Jr. and S.E. Baker. 1973. Lower Water Temperatures within aStreamside Buffer Strip. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest ServiceResearch Note SE-193. S.E. Forestry Experimental Station, Asheville, NC. 7pp.

Abstract: *The removal of streamside vegetation increases the water temperature in mountain streams. Clearcutting and farming have been found to raise temperatures beyond the tolerance levelfor trout (68°F [20°C]). Within the sale areas of a commercial clearcut in the mountains ofNorth Carolina, a narrow buffer strip of uncut trees and shrubs was left beside a stream. Although water temperatures within the sale area may have exceeded 68°F (20°C), thestream immediately below the sale area was never warmer than 62°F (17°C).

Tollner, E.W., B.J. Barfield, and C.T. Haan. 1975. Vegetation as a Sediment Filter.pp. 61-64. In: C.T. Haan and R. W. DeVore (eds.), National Symposium onUrban Hydrology and Sediment Control. Office of Research and EngineeringServices, Publ. No. UKY BU109. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 314pp.

Abstract: **The authors suggest the use of grass strips as supplements to settling basins to reduceincreased sedimentation caused by development. Mathematical modelling was used toexamine sediment deposition to determine the appropriate width of grass filter strips. Results indicated that runoff velocity (which is determined by channel slope, flow rate, andvegetation spacing) determines the sediment trapping capacity. Settling velocity (a functionof particle size and sediment concentration) and filter length also influence sedimenttrapping capacity. The trapping equation is included in the report.

Tollner, E.W., B.J. Barfield, C.T. Haan, and T. Y. Kao. 1976. Suspend SedimentFiltration Capacity of Simulated Vegetation. Transaction of the Society ofAgriculture Engineering 19:678-682.

Abstract: *

47

An exponential power function relating the fraction of sediment in a simulated rigid vegetalmedia to pertinent physical variables was developed using linear regression techniques andvarious transformations. Homogeneous sediments and non-submerging flows were studied. The mean velocity was found to be the most influential parameter on sediment trappingfollowed by the flow depth, particle fall velocity, section length, and spacing hydraulicradius.

The spacing hydraulic radius is a combination of the distance between two media elementsand depth of flow and is analogous to the hydraulic radius of an open rectangular channel. This term was observed to be a reasonably good predictor of the length scale in shallowflows through the experiment media. An equation utilizing the spacing hydraulic radius wasobserved to be a good predictor of the mean flow velocity.

Trimble, G.R. Jr. and R.S. Sartz. 1957. How Far from a Stream Should a LoggingRoad be Located? J. Forestry 55:339-341.

Abstract: **The authors determined that logging roads were a major cause of sedimentation leading topoor water quality in forested areas. The width of forested filter strips required to improvethe water quality was calculated, using data collected on the length of sediment dischargefrom existing logging roads. The degree of slope and soil condition were the main factorsconsidered. Additional factors such as culvert spacing, road surface condition, steepness ofroad, sediment trapping, and age of culvert were also found to influence sediment in runoff. Recommendations were given for municipal and general watersheds. In a municipalwatershed, the recommended buffer is 50 ft (15 m) with an increase of 4 feet (1.22 m) forevery 1% increase in slope. In general watersheds, the recommended buffer is 25 ft (7.6 m)with an increase of 2 feet (.61 m) for every 1% increase in slope.

Walter, M.F., T.S. Steenhuis, and D.A. Haith. 1979. Nonpoint Source PollutionControl by Soil and Water Conservation Practices. Transactions of theAmerican Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), pp. 834-840.

Abstract: *There has been a tendency to equate best management practices, as defined in water qualitylegislation, with soil and water conservation practices. The effectiveness of SWCP's atcontrolling potential pollutants other than sediment depends on the characteristics ofpollutants. Pollutants have been categorized in groups having distinctly different soilabsorption properties which have been related to the effect of SWCP's on water and soilmovement.

Wentz, W.A., R.L. Smith, and J.A. Kadlec. 1974. State-of-the-art Survey andEvaluation of Marsh Plant Establishment Techniques: Induced and Natural,Vol. 2, A Selected Annotated Bibliography on Aquatic and Marsh Plants andTheir Management. Prepared for the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways

48

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi by the School of NaturalResources, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Abstract: *The 703 references listed in this volume were collected for the investigation of marsh andaquatic plant establishment which is reported in Volume I, Report of Research, of thisreport. The purpose of this bibliography is to make available an annotated listing ofreferences which were not cited in Volume I. Although the bibliography does not representan exhaustive review of the literature, it does provide an extensive survey of the pertinentreferences on the ecology and management of aquatic and marsh plants. The referencesselected for this bibliography emphasize studies useful to researchers and managers. Inaccordance with the focus of Volume I, this volume concentrates on coastal Great Lakes,and riverine marshes.

Whipple, W., Jr., J.M. DiLouie, and T. Pytlar, Jr. 1981. Erosion Potential of Streamsin Urbanizing Areas. Water Resources Bulletin (AWRA) 17:36-45.

Abstract: *In urbanizing areas, the usual increase in flood flows also increases erosional capability ofstreams. In order to evaluate such tendencies quantitatively, 25 stream reaches werestudied, and were classified as to whether erosion of the channel and banks was light,medium, or heavy. Analysis of characteristics indicated that (1) densely developed areas arecorrelated with greater erosion, (2) wide stream buffers of natural vegetation are correlatedwith lesser erosion, and (3) there is no definite correlation of erosion to slope orcharacteristics of soil.

Erosional stream stability can be avoided by retention of storm water runoff, creatingadditional channel roughness or reducing channel slope during floods by drop structures,such as culverts, which restrict flow. Channel straightening and general bank protectionshould be minimized in such streams. Design of culverts should take such effects intoconsideration.

Williams, J.D. and C.K. Dodd, Jr. 1978. Importance of Wetlands to Endangered andThreatened Species. pp. 565-575. In: Phillip E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E.Clark (eds.), Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding.American Water Resources Association.

Abstract: *The importance of wetland habitats to certain endangered and threatened plants and animalsof the United States is reviewed and examples of endangered and threatened reptiles,amphibians, fishes, and birds dependent on wetlands are discussed. The role of theAmerican alligator in shaping some wetland habitats is greater than its commercial value. The status of wetland habitats in desert areas of the southwestern United States is examinedand Ash Meadows, Nevada, is used as an example to illustrate the precarious nature of

49

these habitats. On a national basis, the percentage of endangered and threatened speciesdependent on wetlands is presented by major taxonomic groups. Without increasedprotection of wetland habitats, many of our endangered and threatened species maydisappear before the end of the century.

Wilson, L.G. 1967. Sediment Removal from Flood Water by Grass Filtration.Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), pp.35-37.

Abstract: **The authors studied sediment removal from runoff using grass filtration. The developmentof an economical and efficient method of improving the quality of water required forartificial recharge stimulated the research. Several field experiments were conducted usingvarious lengths of Bermuda grasses. A maximum percentage of sand, silt, and clays weretrapped at buffer lengths of 10, 50, and 400 feet, respectively. Bermuda grasses inparticular were found to be effective in reducing sediment loads as a result of a higherroughness coefficient. Previous results suggest effective grass filters should meet thefollowing requirements: (1) deep root system to resist scouring if swift currents develop; (2)dense, well ramified top growth; (3) resistance to flooding and drought; (4) ability torecover growth subsequent to inundation with sediment; and (5) yield of economic returnsthrough either the production of seed or hay.

Wolf, R.B., L.C. Lee, and R.R. Shartz. 1986. Wetland Creation and Restoration inthe US from 1970 to 1985: An Annotated Bibliography. Wetlands 6:1-88.

Abstract: **This bibliography deals with the creation of new and the restoration of disturbed salt andfreshwater wetlands in the United States since 1970. The authors' aim was to providewetland scientists and regulatory agencies with an index for identifying and locatingpublications useful in planning new projects or reviewing old ones. In selecting projects,they emphasized site engineering and plant propagation. Therefore, numerous articles thatdiscuss preparing the site for natural or artificial revegetation, and transplanting and seedingof vegetation, are included in the 304 reports cited. However, articles concerning moreminor habitat adjustments and, for example, lake or reservoir management for wildlife orwaterfowl, are not included.

Documents are arranged alphabetically by senior author. A full citation and briefdescription of the problem or topic discussed is included for each one. National TechnicalInformation Service (NTIS, Springfield, VA 22161) order numbers are provided forpublications available through that office. Following the citations are indices arranged byplant species, subject, and state.

Reports of wetland restoration and creation projects from more than 30 states are cited. Inthese articles, all major aspects of wetland construction are described in detail. Such topics

50

as site selection; planning; engineering and design; seeding; plant material selection,harvest,storage, and transplanting; fertilization requirements, cost and labor estimates; andmaintenance requirements are included for marsh, riparian, and littoral zone development. Detailed directions for propagating about 150 plant species can be found. Additionally,more basic questions are addressed, such as the value of wetlands, whether artificial orrestored wetlands approximate natural, and how wetlands should be regulated. Severalbibliographies, project surveys, and literature reviews are included.

Wong, S.L., and R.H. McCuen. 1982. The Design of Vegetative Buffer Strips ForRunoff and Sediment Control. A technical paper developed as part of a studyof stormwater management in coastal areas funded by Maryland Coastal ZoneManagement Program. 23 pp.

Abstract: **This study analyzes the design of vegetative buffer strips to reduce runoff volume andsediment loading was analyzed, an economical alternative to detention basins for themanagement of stormwater runoff. A mathematical model was developed which includesthe variables that reflect important design factors for vegetative buffer strips, including soilscharacteristics and cover complex characteristics. A graphic representation is provided forthe relationship between sediment trapping efficiency, the length and slope of the bufferstrip, and the roughness coefficient of the vegetation. The ability of buffer strips to reducerunoff volume is also examined. The reduction in the runoff volume occurs as thevegetation impedes and retards the flow of water, allowing a portion of it to infiltrate intothe soil. The rate of infiltration is a function of: 1) the condition of the vegetative cover, 2)the properties of the underlying soil, 3) the rainfall intensity, and 4) antecedent soilconditions. These factors act in an interrelated manner to affect the amount of water thatinfiltrates into a buffer strip.

Young, R.A. and C.K. Mutchler. 1969. Effect of Slope Shape on Erosion and Runoff.Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) 9:231-239.

Abstract: *(conclusion)Erosion varies significantly from a given slope length with the same average degree of slopebut with different slope configurations. Runoff also varies according to slope configurationbut to a lesser degree. These variations are essentially independent of the type of surfacecover existing on the ground.

There is a characteristic slope segment, the percent slope of which correlates best with soilloss from that entire slope. For topographic and rainfall conditions described in thisexperiment, that slope segment was the bottom 15 ft (4.6 m) of the slope.

51

The amount of lapsed time since the last tillage operation before testing was a significantfactor affecting soil loss. This is due to the fact that, with the passage of time, erosion andelevation tend to remove the more readily eroded particles, leaving the soil in a less erodiblecondition.

Antecedent soil moisture, while obviously having a significant role in erosion and runoff,appeared insignificant in this experiment because its effects were interrelated with type ofrun, slope shape, and year of testing.

Maximum soil displacement on the concave slopes took place in the upper one-third of the75-ft (23 m) plot, with deposition occurring at the bottom of the plot. On the convex anduniform slopes, the maximum displacement occurred about three-fourths of the way downthe slope.

Type of run, initial or wet, and year of testing were the dominant factors affecting runofffrom the corn and fallow plots, and amount of vegetative cover was the dominant factoraffecting runoff on the oat plots.

Further study is needed to determine the exact pattern of soil movement on these slopes andthe changes in slope shape resulting from this movement.

Young, R.A., T. Huntrods, and W. Anderson. 1980. Effectiveness of Vegetated BufferStrips in Controlling Pollution from Feedlot Runoff. J Environ. Qual. 9:483-497.

Abstract: *A rainulator was used to test vegetative buffer strips for their ability to control pollutionfrom feedlot runoff. Cropped buffer strips on a 4% slope reduced runoff and total solidstransported from a feedlot by 67% and 79%, respectively. Ammonium-N and PO4-P weresimilarly reduced, but average NO3-N in the runoff increased because some NO3-N wasgained from the sorghum (Sorghum vulgare L.), sudangrass (Sorghum sudanese L.) and theoat (Avena sativa L.) buffer strips. During both years, the number of coliform organisms inthe runoff water was reduced after runoff passed through the vegetated buffer strips. Theseresults indicate that nonstructural feedlot discharge control practices are a promisingalternative method for controlling pollution from feedlot runoff.

[Bufferstrips of 36 m (118 ft) for the feedlot study sites were found to be sufficient inreducing the concentration of nutrients and microorganisms to acceptable levels in feed lotrunoff from summer storms.]

Zeigler, B. 1988. Interdepartmental Report - Wetland Buffers: Essential for Fish andWildlife. Habitat Management Division, Wash. State Dept. of Wildlife.

Abstract: **

52

The author has reviewed the value of wetland buffers and riparian areas for fish and wildlife. The review includes a summary of information from Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP)models for several species of birds, fish, mammals, and amphibians relevant to bufferwidths. The selected species include the Wood Duck, Blue-Winged Teal, Lesser Scaup,Gadwall, Dabbling Ducks, Canvasback Duck, Black Brant, Marbled Murrelet, Bald Eagle,Great Blue Heron, Spotted Owl, Yellow-Headed Blackbird, Red-Winged Blackbird, RuffedGrouse, Downy Woodpecker, Black-Capped Chickadee, Song Sparrow, Black-TailedDeer, Elk, River Otter, Beaver, Muskrat, Mink, Black Bear, Salamander, Red-SpottedNewt, Western Pond Turtle, Coho Salmon, Cutthroat Trout, Brown Trout, and ChinookSalmon. Minimum buffers of 200 ft (61 m) were recommended in forested areas. In non-forested wetlands, such as eelgrass beds, salt marshes, and palustrine emergent wetlands, aminimum of 300 ft (91 m) was recommended. The report suggested that buffers may needto be more extensive to protect sensitive soils and species. Replacement of vegetationaround wetland systems was also recommended.

53

REFERENCES

(entries in bold are included in the annotated bibliography)

Adams, L.W., L.E. Dove, and D.L. Leedy. Public Attitudes Towards Urban Wetlands forStormwater control and Wildlife Enhancement. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 12:299-303.

Adamus, P. R., and L.T. Stockwell. 1983. A Method for Wetland FunctionalAssessment, Vol. 1. Federal Highway Administration Rep. No. FHWA-IP-82-23.

Allen, A.W. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Mink. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.61. 19 pp.

Allen, A.W. and R.D. Hoffman. 1984. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Muskrat.,U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.46. 27 pp.

Allen, H.H. 1978. Role of Wetland Plants in Erosion Control of Riparian Shorelines.pp. 403-414. In: Phillip E. Greeson, John R. Clark, and Judith E. Clark (eds.),Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. AmericanWater Resources Association.

Baca, B.J., and J.R. Clark. 1988. Coastal Management Practices for Prevention of FutureImpacts on Wetlands. pp. 28-44. In: D.D. Hook, W.H. McKee, Jr., H.K. Smith, J.Gregory, V.G. Burrell, Jr., M.R. DeVoe, R.E. Sojka, S. Gilbert, R. Banks, L.H.Stolzy, C. Brooks, T.D. Matthews, and T.H. Shear (eds.), The Ecology andManagement of Wetlands, Vol. 2, Management, Use and Value of Wetlands.Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

Barton, D.R., W.D. Taylor, and R.M. Biette. 1985. Dimensions of Riparian BufferStrips Required to Maintain Trout Habitat in Southern Ontario Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:364-378.

Beschta, R.L. 1978. Long-Term Patterns of Sediment Production Following RoadConstruction and Logging in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resour. Res.14:1011-1016.

Bingham, S.C., P.W. Westerman, M.R. Overcash. 1980. Effects of Grass Buffer ZoneLength in Reducing the Pollution from Land Application Areas. Transactionsof the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), 23:330-342.

Boule, M.E., and K.F. Bierly. 1987. History of Estuarine Wetland Development andAlteration: What Have We Wrought?. Northwest Environ. Jour. 3:43-61.

54

Boule, M.E., R.D. Kranz, and T. Miller. 1985. Annotated Wetland Bibliography of theState of Washington. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, SeattleDistrict by Shapiro and Assoc., Inc., Seattle.

Brazier, J.R. and G.W. Brown. 1973. Buffer Strips for Stream Temperature Control.Research Paper no.15, Forest Research Lab, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis,OR. 9 pp.

Broderson, J. Morris. 1973. Sizing Buffer Strips to Maintain Water Quality. M.S.Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.

Brooks, R.P. and J.B. Hill. 1987. Status and Trends of Freshwater Wetlands in theCoal-mining Region of Pennsylvania, USA. Environmental Management11:29-34.

Brown, E.R., (ed.). 1985. Riparian Zones and Freshwater Wetlands. Management ofWildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington,Part I - Chapter Narratives. pp. 57-80.

Brown, G.W. and J.T. Krygier. 1970. Effects of Clear Cutting on StreamTemperature. Wat. Resour. Res. 6:1133-1139.

Brown, M.T. and J.M. Schaefer. 1987. Buffer Zones for Water, Wetland, andWildlife. A Final Report on the Evaluation of the Applicability of UplandBuffers for the Wetlands of the Wekiva Basin. Prepared for the St. JohnsRiver Water Management District by the Center for Wetlands, University ofFlorida, Gainesville, Florida 32611. 163 pp.

Budd, W.W., Paul L. Cohen, P.R. Saunders, and F.R. Steiner. 1987. Stream CorridorManagement in the Pacific Northwest: I. Determination of Stream-CorridorWidths. Environmental Management 11:587-597.

Butcher, G.S., W.A. Niering, W.J. Barry, and R.H. Goodwin. 1981. EquilibriumBiogeography and the Size of Nature Preserves: An Avian Case Study.Oecologia 49:29-37.

Canning, D.J. 1985. Shoreline Bluff & Slope Stability: Technical ManagementOptions. Shorelands Technical Advisory Paper No. 2, (external review draft),Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington State Dept.of Ecology.

Chadwick, J. W. and S. P. Canton. 1983. Coal Mine Drainage Effects on a LoticEcosystem in Northwest Colorado, U.S.A. Hydrobiologia 107:25-33.

55

Chescheir, G.M., J.W. Gilliam, R.W. Skaggs, and R.G. Broadhead. 1987. TheHydrology and Pollutant Removal Effectiveness of Wetland Buffer AreasReceiving Pumped Agricultural Drainage Water. North Carolina WaterResources Research Institute, Raleigh, North Carolina. Completion Rep. No.231.

Clark, J.R. 1977. Coastal Ecosystem Management: a Technical Manual for theConservation of Coastal Zone Resources. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NewYork.

Coats, R., M. Swanson, and P. Williams. 1989. Hydrologic Analysis for CoastalWetland Restoration. Environmental Management 13:715-727.

Cohen, P.L. 1985. Stream Corridor Management for the Pacific Northwest and KingCounty, Washington. M.S. Thesis, Washington State University, Pullman.

Cohen, P.L., P.R. Saunders, W.W. Budd, and F.R. Steiner. 1987. Steam CorridorManagement in the Pacific Northwest: II. Management Strategies.Environmental Management, 11:599-605.

Corbett, E.S. and J.A. Lynch. 1985. Management of Streamside Zones on MunicipalWatersheds. pp. 187-190. In: R. R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, P.F.Folliott, and R.H. Hamre (eds.), Riparian Ecosystems and their Management:Reconciling Conflicting Uses. First North American Riparian Conference,April 16-18, 1985, Tucson, Arizona.

Culp, J.M. and R.W. Davies. 1983. An Assessment of the Effects of StreambankClear-Cutting on Macroinvertebrate Communities in a Managed Watershed. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, No. 1208: xv +115 p. Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Fisheries Research Branch;Pacific Biological Station; Nanaimo, British Columbia; V9R 5K6.

Darling, N ., L. Stonecipher, D. Couch, and J. Thomas. 1982. Buffer Strip SurvivalSurvey. Hoodsport Ranger District, Olympic National Forest.

Darnell, R.M., W.E. Pequegnat, B.M. James, F.J. Benson, and R.A. Defenbaugh.1976. Impacts of Construction Activities in Wetlands of the United States. USEPA, Office of Research and Development, Corvallis Environmental ResearchLaboratory. Corvallis, Oregon 97330. EPA-600/3-76-045, 392 pp.

Davis, A.A. 1989. DER Wetlands Protection Action Plan. Water Pollution Control Assoc.of Pennsylvania Magazine 22:18-22.

56

Doyle, R. C., G. C. Stanton, D. C. Wolf. 1977. Effectiveness of Forest And GrassBuffer Strips in Improving the Water Quality of Manure Polluted Runoff. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Paper No. 77-2501.

Dresen, M., and M.E. Vollbrecht. 1986. Wisconsin's Shoreland Zoning Program: Designand Direction. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin.

Edwards, E.A., D.A. Krieger, M. Bacteller, and O.E. Maughan. 1982. HabitatSuitability Index Models: Black Crappie. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service.FWS/OBS-82/10.6.

Eilers, H.P., A. Taylor, and W. Sanville. 1983. Vegetative Delineation of Coastal SaltMarsh Boundaries. Environmental Management 7:443-452.

Elmore, W., and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian Areas: Perceptions in Management.Rangelands 9:260-265.

Erman, D.C., J.D. Newbold, and K.B. Roby. 1977. Evaluation of StreamsideBufferstrips for Protecting Aquatic Organisms. Technical Completion Report,Contribution #165, California Water Resources Center, University ofCalifornia, Davis, CA.

Erman, D.C., and D. Mahoney. 1983. Recovery After Logging in Streams with and withoutBufferstrips in Northern California. Contribution No. 186, California WaterResources Center, Univ. of California, Davis, CA.

Erwin, K.L. 1990. Freshwater marsh creation and restoration in the Southeast. pp. 233-266.In: J.A. Kusler and M.E. Kentula (eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration: TheStatus of the Science, Part 2: Perspectives. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Fishman, P.A., N.S. Geiger, L. Sharp, J.W. Buell, and L. Wilson. 1987. EstuarineMitigation Evaluation Project--Mitigation Site Evaluation Notebook. Submitted tothe Department of Land Conservation and Development and The Division of StateLands. Fishman Environmental Services, Portland, Oregon.

Friedman, J. 1985. Wetland Hydrology and Sedimentation: Implications for the Design andManagement of Wetland Preserves. The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, Washington.

Garbisch, E.W., Jr. 1977. Recent and Planned Marsh Establishment WorkThroughout the Contiguous United States--A Survey and Basic Guidelines.Contr. Rep. D-77-3. U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Exp. Sta., Vicksburg,Mississippi.

57

Gilliam, J.W., and R.W. Skaggs. 1988. Natural Buffer Areas and Drainage Control toRemove Pollutants from Agricultural Drainage Waters. pp. 145-148. In: J.A.Kusler, M. Quammen, and G. Brooks (eds.), ASWM Technical Report 3;Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium: Mitigation of ImpactsandLosses, October 8-10, 1986. US Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. EPA, and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.

Grismer, M.E. 1981. Evaluating Dairy Waste Management Systems Influence onFecal Coliform Concentration in Runoff. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State Univ.,Corvallis.

Groffman, P.M., A.J. Gold, T.P. Husband, R.C. Simmons, and W.R. Eddleman. 1990.An Investigation into Multiple Uses of Vegetated Buffer Strips. Publ. No.NBP-90-44, Dept. of Natural Resources Science, Univ. of Rhode Island,Kingston, RI.

Guidelines for Land Development and Protection of the Aquatic Environment[British Columbia]. 1978. Land Use Unit, Habitat Protection Division,Resource Services Branch; Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, PacificRegion, Fisheries & Marine Service, 1090 West Pender Street, Vancouver,British Columbia, V6E 2P1. Fisheries & Marine Service Technical Report No.807. 55 pp.

Harris, R.A. 1985. Vegetative Barriers: An Alternative Highway Noise AbatementMeasure. Noise Control Engineering Journal 27:4-8.

Hart, R. 1981. Regulatory Definitions of Wetlands: Do They Maximize WetlandFunction? pp. 273-283. In: P. McCaffrey, T. Breemer, and S. Gatewood (eds.),Proceedings of a Symposium: Progress in Wetlands Utilization andManagement. Coordinating Council on the Restoration of the KissimmeeRiver Valley and Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Basin.

Heede, B.H. 1984. Overland Flow and Sediment Delivery: An Experiment with SmallSubdrainage in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests (Colorado, U.S.A.). J.Hydrology 72:261-273.

Heifetz, J., M.L. Murphy, and K.V. Koski. 1986. Effects of Logging on WinterHabitat of Juvenile Salmonids in Alaskan Streams. North American J. ofFisheries Management 6:52-58.

Hewett, J.D., and J.C. Fortson. 1982. Stream Temperature Under an InadequateBuffer Strip in the Southeast Piedmont. Wat. Resour. Bull. (AWRA) 18:983-988.

58

Hickman, T., and R.F. Raleigh. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: CutthroatTrout. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.5.

Horner, R.R. and K.J. Raedeke. 1989. Guide for Wetland Mitigation Project Monitoring:Monitoring Guide (Operational Draft). Washington State Department ofTransportation, Olympia, Washington.

IEP Consulting. 1990. Vegetated Buffer Strip Designation Method Guidance Manual.Prepared for Narragansett Bay Project by IEP, Inc., Northborough, MA.

Jacobs, T.C. and J.W. Gilliam. 1985. Riparian Losses of Nitrate from AgriculturalDrainage Waters. J. Environ. Qual. 14:472-478.

Johnson, L.E., and W.V. McGuinness. 1975. Guidelines for Material Placement in MarshCreations. U.S. Army Waterways Exp. Sta., Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Johnson, R.R. and J.F. McCormick. 1978. Strategies for Protection and Management ofFloodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian Ecosystems. Proceedings of theSymposium in Georgia, 1978. GTR-WO-12. U.S. Forest Service.

Johnson, S.W., J. Heifetz, and K.V. Koski. 1986. Effects of Logging on theAbundance and Seasonal Distribution of Juvenile Steelhead in SomeSoutheastern Alaska Streams. North American J. of Fisheries Management6:532-537.

Jones, J.J., J.P. Lortie, and U.D. Pierce, Jr. 1988. The Identification andManagement of Significant Fish and Wildlife Resources in Southern CoastalMaine. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta, Maine.140 pp.

Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1988. Restoration Potential of Diked Estuarine Wetlandsin Washington and Oregon: Phase 1 - Inventory of Candidate Sites (Final Report).U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Water Division, WetlandsSection, Seattle, Washington.

Josselyn, M., J. Zedler, and T. Griswold. 1990. Wetland Mitigation along the Pacific Coastof the United States. pp. 3-36. In: J.A. Kusler and M.E. Kentula (eds.), WetlandCreation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, Part 2: Perspectives. IslandPress, Washington, D.C.

Kadlec, J.A. and W.A. Wentz. 1974. State-of-the-Art Survey and Evaluation of MarshPlant Establishment Techniques: Induced and Natural. Volume I: Report ofResearch. U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Exp.Sta., Contr. Rep. D-74-9. Vicksburg,Mississippi. Grant No. DACW72-74-C-0010.

59

Kao, D.T.Y., B.J. Barfield, and A.E. Lyons, Jr. 1975. On-Site Sediment FiltrationUsing Grass Strips. pp. 73-82. In: National Symposium on Urban Hydrologyand Sediment Control, July 28-31, 1975. University of Kentucky, Lexington,KY.

Karr, J.R. and I.. Schlosser. 1978. Water Resources and the Land-Water Interface.Science 201:229-234.

Kentula, M.E. 1986. Wetland Creation and Rehabilitation in the Pacific Northwest. pp. 119-128. In: R. Strickland (ed.), Wetland Functions, Rehabilitation, and Creation in thePacific Northwest: The State of Our Understanding. Proceedings of a ConferenceApril 30 - May 2, 1986, Fort Worden State Park, Port Townsend, Washington.Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.

King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance. 1990. Ordinance No. 9614, King County,Washington.

Koski, K.V., J. Heifetz, S. Johnson, M. Murphy, and J. Thedinga. 1985. Evaluation ofBuffer Strips for Protection of Salmonid Rearing Habitat and Implications forEnhancement. pp 138-155. In: Thomas J. Hassler (ed.), Proceedings: PacificNorthwest Stream Habitat Management Workshop, October 10-12, 1985.American Fisheries Society, Western Division. Humbolt State University,Arcata, California.

Krieger, D.A., J.W. Terrell, and P.C. Nelson. 1983 Habitat Suitability Information:Yellow Perch. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.55.

Kunz, K., M. Rylko, and E. Somers. 1988. an Assessment of Wetland Mitigation PracticesPursuant to Section 404 Permitting Activities in Washington State. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington.

Kusler, J.A. 1989. No Net Loss and the Role of Wetlands Restoration/Creation in aRegulatory Context. pp. 378-393. In: J.A. Kusler, S. Day, and G. Brooks (eds.),Urban Wetlands, Proceedings of the National Wetlands Symposium, June 26-29,Oakland, California. Assoc. of State Wetland Managers, Inc., Berne, New York.

Kusler, J.A., and M.E. Kentula (eds.). 1990. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Statusof the Science, Part 2: Perspectives. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Kusler, J.A. 1990. Our National Wetlands Heritage: A Protection Guidebook. TheEnvironmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C.

60

Kusler, J.A., M.L. Quammen, and G. Brooks (eds.). 1988. Mitigation of Impacts andLosses. Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana,October 8-10, 1986. Assoc. of State Wetland Managers, Inc., Berne, New York.

Lake, J., and J. Morrison. 1977. Environmental Impact of Land Use on WaterQuality: Final Report on the Black Creek Project. Allen County Soil andWater Conservation District, Fort Wayne, Indiana, and the US EPA, Region5, Great Lakes National Program Office, 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago,Illinois 60604. EPA-905/9-77-007-A, 94 pp.

Loukes, O.L. 1989. Restoration of the Pulse Control Function of Wetlands and itsRelationship to Water Quality Objectives. pp. 467-478. In: J.A. Kusler and M.E.Kentula (eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, Part 2:Perspectives. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Lovejoy, T.E. and D.C. Oren. 1981. The Minimum Critical Size of Ecosystems. pp. 7-12. In: R. L. Burgess and D. M. Sharpe (eds.), Forest Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes. Ecological Studies #41. Springer-Verlag: New York.310 pp.

Lowrance, R., R.Todd, J. Fail, Jr., O. Hendrickson, Jr., R. Leonard, and L.Asmussen. 1984. Riparian Forests as Nutrient Filters in AgriculturalWatersheds. BioScience. 34:374-377.

Lynch, J.A., E.S. Corbett, and K. Mussallem. 1985. Best Management Practices forControlling Nonpoint-Source Pollution on Forested Watersheds. J. Soil andWater Conservation 40:164-167.

Mahoney, D.L., and D.C. Erman. 1984. The Role of Streamside Bufferstrips in theEcology of Aquatic Biota. pp. 168-175. In: R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix(eds.), California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation, and ProductiveManagement.

Martin, W.C., D.S. Noel, and C.A. Federer. 1984. Effects of Forest Clearcutting inNew England on Stream Chemistry. J. Environ Qual. 13:204-210.

Martinez-Taberner, G. Moya, G. Ramon and V. Forteza. 1990 Limnological Criteriafor the Rehabilitation of a Coastal Marsh. The Albufera of Majorca, BalearicIslands. Ambio 19:21-27.

Mason, C.O. and D.A. Slocum. 1987. Wetland Replication--Does it Work? pp. 1183-1197.In: Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, May1987, Volume 1. Amer. Soc. of Civil Eng., New York, New York.

61

McMahon, T.E. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Coho Salmon. U.S. Dept.Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.49.

Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency and theDepartment of the Army concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under theClean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. (Feb. 7, 1990).

Milligan, D.A. 1985. The Ecology of Avian Use of Urban Freshwater Wetlands inKing County, Washington. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.

Moring, J.R. 1982. Decrease in Stream Gravel Permeability After Clear-cut Logging:an Indication of Intragravel Conditions for Developing Salmonid Eggs andAlevins. Hydrobiologia 88:295-298.

Morrison, S.W. 1988. Percival Creek Corridor Plan. J. Soil Water Conserv. 43:465-467.

Mudd, D.R. 1975. Touchet River Wildlife Study. Applied Research Section,Environmental Management Division, Washington Game Department.Bulletin No. 4.

Murphy, B.D., and C.L. Phillips. 1989. Mitigation Measures Recommended in Connecticutto Protect Stream and Riparian Resources from Suburban Development. pp 35-39.In: Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management: An EducationWorkshop. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Murphy, M.L., J. Heifetz, S.W. Johnson, K.V. Koski, J.F. Thedinga. 1986. Effects ofClear-cut Logging With and Without Buffer Strips on Juvenile Salmonids inAlaskan Streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43:1521-1533.

Naiman, R.J., H. Decamps, J. Pastor, and C.A. Johnston. 1988. The PotentialImportance of Boundaries to Fluvial Ecosystems. Journal of the N. AmericanBenthological Society 7:289-306.

Nelson, R.W. and W. J. Logan. 1984. Policy on Wetland Impact Mitigation. EnvironmentInternational, 10:9-19.

Newbold, J.D., D.C. Erman, K.B. Roby. 1980. Effects of Logging onMacroinvertebrates in Streams With and Without Buffer Strips. Can. J. Fish.Aquat. Sci. 37:1076-1085.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Resources. 1986. CoastalWetland Buffer Delineation. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,Division of Resources, Trenton, New Jersey.

62

Nieswand, G.H., R.M. Hordon, T.B. Shelton, B.B. Chavooshian, and S.Blarr. 1990.Buffer Strips to Protect Water Supply Reservoirs: A Model andRecommendations. Water Resources Bulletin 26:959-966.

Noel, D.S., C. W. Martin, and C.A. Federer. 1986. Effects of Forest Clearcutting onNew England on Stream Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton. EnvironmentalManagement, 10:661-670.

Noss, R.F. 1983. A Regional Landscape Approach to Maintain Diversity. BioScience33:700-706.

Noss, R.F. 1987. Corridors in Real Landscapes: A Reply to Simberloff and Cox.Conservation Biology 1:159-164.

O'Meara, T., T. Chaney, and W. Klockner. 1976. Maryland Uplands Natural Areas Study(Field Notebook, Western Shore). Rogers and Golden, Inc., for the MarylandDepartment of Natural Resources.

Omernik, J.M., A.R. Abernathy, and L.M. Male. 1981. Stream Nutrient Levels andProximity of Agricultural and Forest Land to Streams: Some Relationships. J.Soil Water Conservation 36:227-231.

Overcash, M.R., S.C. Bingham, and P.W. Westerman. 1981. Predicting RunoffPollutant Reduction in Buffer Zones Adjacent to Land Treatment Sites.Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), pp.430-435.

Palfrey, R. and E.H. Bradley, Jr. 1981. Natural Buffer Areas: An AnnotatedBibliography. Coastal Resources Division, Tidewater Administration,Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Tawes State Office Building,Annapolis, Maryland 21401.

Palfrey, R. and E.H. Bradley, Jr. 1981. The Buffer Area Study. Coastal ResourcesDivision, Tidewater Administration, Maryland Department of NaturalResources, Tawes State Office Building, Annapolis, MD 21401.

Petersen, R.C., Jr., B.L. Madsen, M.A. Wizlbach, C.H.D. Magadza, A. Paarlberg, A.Kullberg and K.W. Cummins. 1987. Stream Management: Emerging GlobalSimilarities. Ambio 16:166-179.

Porter, B.W. 1980. The Wetland Edge: Ecology and the Need for Protection. NationalWetlands Newsletter.

63

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1986. Habitat and Wetlands Protection. Issue Paper,Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, Washington.

Raleigh, R.F. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Brook Trout. U.S. Dept. Int.,Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.24.

Raleigh, R.F., T. Hickman, R.C. Solomon, and P.C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat SuitabilityInformation: Rainbow Trout. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.60.

Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Myers. 1979. Wetland ValuesConcepts and Methods for Wetlands Evaluation. Research Report 79-R1, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA.

Rice, P.D. 1984. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Dabbling Ducks. U.S. Dept. Int.,Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/.

Richards, D.L., and L.M. Middleton. 1978. Best Management Practices for Erosionand Sediment Control. Federal Highway Administration Rpt. No. FHWA-HD-15-1.

Riparian Habitat Committee, (WDAFS). 1982. The Best Management Practices forthe Management and Protection of Western Riparian Stream Ecosystems.Western Div., Amer. Fisheries Society, 574.5263/AMERICA.

Robertson, R.J. and N.J. Flood. 1980. Effects of Recreational Use of Shorelines onBreeding Bird Populations. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 94:131-138.

Rogers, Golden & Halpern, Inc. 1988. Wetland Buffer Delineation Method. Divisionof Coastal Resources, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,CN 401, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. 69 pp.

Roman, C.T. and Good, R.E. 1983. Wetlands of the New Jersey Pinelands: Values,Functions and Impacts (Section One). In: Wetlands of the New JerseyPinelands: Values, Functions, Impacts, and a Proposed Buffer DelineationModel. Division of Pinelands Research, Center for Coastal and EnvironmentalStudies, Rutgers - the State University, New Brunswick, NJ. 123 pp.

Roman, C.T. and Good, R.E. 1986. Delineating Wetland Buffer Protection Areas: The New Jersey Pinelands Model. pp. 224-230. In: Jon A. Kusler and PatriciaRiexinger (eds.), Proceedings of the National Wetland Assessment Symposium,June 17-20, 1985. Portland, Maine. ASWM Technical Report 1.

64

Schroeder, R.L. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Pileated Woodpecker. U.S.Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.39. 15 pp.

Schroeder, R.L. 1984. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Black Brant. U.S. Dept. Int.,Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.63.

Shisler, J.K., P.E. Waidelich, and H.G. Russell. 1985. Coastal Wetlands: WetlandsBuffer Delineation Study - Task 1. Mosquito Research & Control, New JerseyAgricultural Experiment Station, and Rutgers University, New Brunswick,New Jersey 09803.

Shisler, J.K., R.A. Jordan, and R.N. Wargo 1987. Coastal Wetland BufferDelineation. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, Division ofCoastal Resources, Trenton, New Jersey. 102 pp.

Simberloff, D., and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and Costs of Conservation Corridors.Conservation Biology 1:63-71.

Simenstad, C.A., C.D. Tanner, and R.M. Thom. 1989. Estuarine Wetland RestorationMonitoring Protocol: Final Draft Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Region 10, Seattle, Washington.

Sinicrope, T.L., P.G. Hine, R.S. Warren, and William A. Niering. 1990. Restorationof an Impounded Salt Marsh in New England. Estuaries 13:25-30.

Smardon, R.C. 1978. Visual-cultural Values of Wetlands. pp. 535-544 In: Phillip E.Greeson, John R. Clark, and Judith E. Clark (eds.), Wetland Functions andValues: The State of Our Understanding. American Water ResourcesAssociation.

Soil Conservation Service. 1982. Filter Strip (acre). Soil Conservation Service (SCS),Filter Strip 393.

Sousa, P.J., and A.H. Farmer. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Wood Duck. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.43. 27 pp.

Steinblums, I., H. Froehlich, and J. Lyons. 1982. Designing Stable Buffer Strips forStream Protection. U.S. Forest Service, 2520 Watershed Protection andManagement.

Stuber, R.J., G. Gilbert, and O.E. Maughan. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models:Largemouth Bass. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.16.

65

Swanston, D.N., and F.J. Swanson. 1976. Timber Harvesting, Mass Erosion, andSteepland Forest Geomorphology in the Pacific Northwest. In: D.R. Coates(ed.), Geomorphology and Engineering. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross,Stroudsberg, PA.

Swift, L.W. and J.B. Messer. 1971. Forest Cuttings Raise Temperatures of SmallStreams in the Southern Appalachians. J. Soil Wat. Conserv. 26:111-116.

Swift, L.W. Jr. and S.E. Baker. 1973. Lower Water Temperatures within aStreamside Buffer Strip. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest ServiceResearch Note SE-193. S.E. Forestry Experimental Station, Asheville, NC. 7pp.

Teskey, R.O., and T.M. Hinckley. 1977. Impact of Water Level Changes on WoodyRiparian and Wetland Communities. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-77/59.

Theberge, L, and D.F. Boesch. 1978, Values and Management Strategies for NonvegetatedTidal Wetlands. Special Scientific Rpt. No. 90, Virginia Institute of Marine Science,prepared for the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program.

Thurow, C., W. Toner, and D. Erley. 1975. Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands: APractical Guide for Local Administrations. Rpt. No. EPA 600/5-75-00. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.

Tollner, E.W., B.J. Barfield, and C.T. Haan. 1975. Vegetation as a Sediment Filter. pp. 61-64. In: C.T. Haan and R. W. DeVore (eds.), National Symposium onUrban Hydrology and Sediment Control. Office of Research and EngineeringServices, Publ. No. UKY BU109. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 314pp.

Tollner, E.W., B.J. Barfield, C.T. Haan, and T. Y. Kao. 1976. Suspend SedimentFiltration Capacity of Simulated Vegetation. Transaction of the Society ofAgriculture Engineering 19:678-682.

Trident Engineering Associates, Inc. 1969. Photointerpretation Study of Upper ChesterRiver Watershed to Locate Nonpoint Pollution Sources. Prepared for the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, contract No. 68-03-2688.

Trimble, G.R. Jr. and R.S. Sartz. 1957. How Far from a Stream Should a LoggingRoad be Located? J. Forestry 55:339-341.

66

Ulrich, K.E., and T.M. Burton. 1984. The Establishment and Management of EmergentVegetation in Sewage-Fed Artificial Marshes and the Effects of these Marshes onWater Quality. Wetlands 4:205-220.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Design Manual: Constructed Wetlands andAquatic Plant systems for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. Rpt. No. EPA-625/1-88-022. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research andDevelopment. Washington, D.C.

Walter, M.F., T.S. Steenhuis, and D.A. Haith. 1979. Nonpoint Source PollutionControl by Soil and Water Conservation Practices. Transactions of theAmerican Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), pp. 834-840.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1986. Wetland Functions, Rehabilitation andCreation in the Pacific Northwest: The State of Our Understanding. Pub. No. 86-14,Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1988. Wetland Regulation Guidebook. Pub. No.88-5, Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.

Weller, M.W. 1978. Management of Freshwater Wetlands for Wildlife. pp. 267-284. In:R.E. Good, D.F. Whigham, and R.L. Simpson (eds.), Freshwater Wetlands:Ecological Processes and Management Potential. Academic Press, New York, NewYork.

Wentz, W.A., R.L. Smith, and J.A. Kadlec. 1974. State-of-the-Art Survey andEvaluation of Marsh Plant Establishment Techniques: Induced and Natural,Vol. II, A Selected Annotated Bibliography on Aquatic and Marsh Plants andTheir Management. Prepared for the U.S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi by the School of NaturalResources, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Wessel, A.E., and M.J. Hershman. 1988. Mitigation: Compensating the Environment forUnavoidable Harm. Ch. 12. In: M.J. Hershman (ed.), Urban Ports and HarborManagement. Taylor and Francis, New York, New York.

Whipple, W., Jr., J.M. DiLouie, and T. Pytlar, Jr. 1981. Erosion Potential of Streamsin Urbanizing Areas. Water Resources Bulletin (AWRA) 17:36-45.

Williams J.D. and C.K. Dodd, Jr. 1978. Importance of Wetlands to Endangered andThreatened Species. pp. 565-575. In: Phillip E. Greeson, John R. Clark, andJudith E. Clark (eds.), Wetland Functions and Values: The State of OurUnderstanding. American Water Resources Association.

67

Wilson, L.G. 1967. Sediment Removal from Flood Water by Grass Filtration. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), pp.35-37.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1987. Model Shoreland-Wetland ZoningOrdinance for Cities and Villages. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,Madison, Wisconsin.

Wolf, R.B., L.C. Lee, and R.R. Sharitz. 1986. Special Issue: Wetland Creation andRestoration in the United States from 1970 to 1985 - An AnnotatedBibliography. Wetlands 6:1-88.

Wong, S.L., and R.H. McCuen. 1982. The Design of Vegetative Buffer Strips forRunoff and Sediment Control. A Technical Paper Developed as part of aStudy of Stormwater Management in Coastal Areas Funded by MarylandCoastal Zone Management Program. 23 pp.

Wrye, D. 1987. Some Wetland Vegetation and Planting Techniques for RestorationProjects. Research Paper, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington.

Young, M.J. 1989. Buffer Delineation Method for Urban Palustrine Wetlands in the PugetSound Region. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.

Young, M.J., and S. Mauermann. 1989. Protection of Wetland Ecosystems Via VegetatedZones: An Annotated Bibliography. Washington Department of Ecology,Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Olympia, Washington.

Young, R.A. and C.K. Mutchler. 1969. Effect of Slope Shape on Erosion and Runoff.Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) 9:231-239.

Young, R.A., T. Huntrods, and W. Anderson. 1980. Effectiveness of Vegetated BufferStrips in Controlling Pollution from Feedlot Runoff. J Environ. Qual. 9:483-497.

Zedler, J.B. 1986. Wetland Restoration: Trials and Errors or Ecotechnology? In: R.Strickland (ed.), Wetland Functions, Rehabilitation, and Creation in the PacificNorthwest: The State of Our Understanding. Proceedings of a Conference April 30- May 2, 1986, Fort Worden State Park, Port Townsend, Washington. WashingtonState Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.

Zeigler, B. 1988. Interdepartmental Report - Wetland Buffers: Essential for Fish andWildlife. Habitat Management Division, Wash. State Dept. of Wildlife,Olympia, Washington.